No clue on the past work of this author and I'm not passing any judgement on its veracity, but it's an interesting theory that sounds very plausible.

Quote:Washington, DC – The underlying story of Benghazi is one that cannot and will not be talked about in any open session of Congress. This means that Thursday’s hearing featuring former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was nothing but an exercise in futility.

It is the story of a covert CIA operation that was operating from a separate facility in the Benghazi compound that was simply known as the “Annex.” Some two dozen CIA case officers, analysts, translators and special staff were a part of this operation and its security was provided by CIA Global Response Staff (GRS), who had entered the country under diplomatic cover.

The CIA’s mission included arms interdiction — attempting to stop the flow of Soviet-era weapons to Central Africa — and very possibly the organization of Libyan arms shipments to vetted insurgent groups on the ground in Syria.

America Will Never Hear Full Benghazi Story

About 3 years slow on that story. It's very similar to what Glenn Beck was saying a couple months after Benghazi happened.

I don't recall the exact date, but do remember the story.

This was NEVER mentioned, that's for sure.

HRC, the consummate liar.

Old news.

Ambassador Stevens was killed by the USA.

This was covered on the last episode of "Homeland."

Part of the gun-running and RPG program going into Syria, right? This is pretty well "known" without even looking that hard.

Now the real question, and what will be interesting answers will be how deeply involved and how much money did or was Sid "vicious" Blumenthal making and how much was directed to the coffers of the front organization Clintoon Foundation.

Gonna be an interesting few months when those e-mails get released.

Funny how of more than 600 requests from her "dear friend" for increased security, not a single, solitary one managed to reach her desk, nor did she know anything about the obvious lack of adequate security (on 9-11, nonetheless). Yet hundreds of emails about Libya, from someone explicitly told to stay the F%^& out of the State Dept., and who claimed in sworn testimony that he knew very little about the place, ALL made their way to the Cankles.

Now why would that be her priority? Instead of the security and well being of her "dear friend"?

Was it all still yoga classes and wedding plans?

My how lying, liars will lie.

We get the government we deserve.

(10-26-2015 01:14 PM)tigertom Wrote:  I don't recall the exact date, but do remember the story.

This was NEVER mentioned, that's for sure.

HRC, the consummate liar.

Did you read the story? Even if true and she knew it, she could not say so in a public forum.

U S forces could have helped save the people at Benghazi.

http://blunttrama.ning.com/profiles/blog...tinhistory

(10-26-2015 02:43 PM)tigertom Wrote:  U S forces could have helped save the people at Benghazi.

http://blunttrama.ning.com/profiles/blog...tinhistory

That's complete crap. Sure, they could have gotten a jet there at some point... but what would they have done other than blow up the whole place killing more US folks and other innocents?

(10-26-2015 12:41 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  No clue on the past work of this author and I'm not passing any judgement on its veracity, but it's an interesting theory that sounds very plausible.

Quote:Washington, DC – The underlying story of Benghazi is one that cannot and will not be talked about in any open session of Congress. This means that Thursday’s hearing featuring former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was nothing but an exercise in futility.

It is the story of a covert CIA operation that was operating from a separate facility in the Benghazi compound that was simply known as the “Annex.” Some two dozen CIA case officers, analysts, translators and special staff were a part of this operation and its security was provided by CIA Global Response Staff (GRS), who had entered the country under diplomatic cover.

The CIA’s mission included arms interdiction — attempting to stop the flow of Soviet-era weapons to Central Africa — and very possibly the organization of Libyan arms shipments to vetted insurgent groups on the ground in Syria.

America Will Never Hear Full Benghazi Story

This is pretty plausible.... likely actually.

(10-26-2015 02:43 PM)tigertom Wrote:  U S forces could have helped save the people at Benghazi.

http://blunttrama.ning.com/profiles/blog...tinhistory

No, they really couldn't have.

I think I'm the senior military officer here, and believe me, the forces available could have done next to nothing.

I've seen a bunch lately about some airborne forces who were in Sicily, "a couple of hours away." That's a couple of hours of flying time. It's maybe two hours if they are strapped in their seats on the aircraft with all their equipment loaded and the aircraft fueled and ready when the clock starts, but that's not where they were. It takes a bit of time, probably about an hour, to get the word to them that you are having a problem. Then you have to figure out where you are going and what you are going to do when you get there. Are you landing the aircraft or are the troops parachuting out? If you're landing, where? If you're jumping, how do you get everyone assembled on the ground? These things all need to be planned and that takes a 2-4 hours, minimum. Then you have to figure out who's going and what equipment they're taking, you have to contact them and get them down to the airstrip, you have to get the equipment down to the airstrip, you have to get the aircraft loaded and fueled and all that stuff, your pilots have to check weather and flight plan and all that, and about 100 other things have to happen before you can go. Many of them can happen simultaneously, so the times aren't additive, but at least one of them always takes longer than you expected that it would, and you're looking at probably 4 hours minimum to get this done. I'm guessing that an absolutely flawless plan and execution would have taken 8-10 hours minimum to get them somewhere in Benghazi, and then who knows how much longer it would have taken to get them where they needed to be on the ground. So no, that was not a viable option.

What is a legitimate question that needs to be asked is how did we end up getting caught with our pants so far down on this one. And no, republican budget cuts had absolutely nothing to do with it. With the cuts, there were still plenty of assets to secure the area, if they had been properly assigned and employed. And the real assets that were needed to react to any problem were military, not state department security forces, and republicans did not cut the military budget to my knowledge. How hard was it to figure out that a consulate in Benghazi on the 9/11 anniversary was probably a higher risk target than the embassy in Ottawa?

(10-26-2015 04:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 02:43 PM)tigertom Wrote:  U S forces could have helped save the people at Benghazi.

http://blunttrama.ning.com/profiles/blog...tinhistory

No, they really couldn't have.

I think I'm the senior military officer here, and believe me, the forces available could have done next to nothing.

I've seen a bunch lately about some airborne forces who were in Sicily, "a couple of hours away." That's a couple of hours of flying time. It's maybe two hours if they are strapped in their seats on the aircraft with all their equipment loaded and the aircraft fueled and ready when the clock starts, but that's not where they were. It takes a bit of time, probably about an hour, to get the word to them that you are having a problem. Then you have to figure out where you are going and what you are going to do when you get there. Are you landing the aircraft or are the troops parachuting out? If you're landing, where? If you're jumping, how do you get everyone assembled on the ground? These things all need to be planned and that takes a 2-4 hours, minimum. Then you have to figure out who's going and what equipment they're taking, you have to contact them and get them down to the airstrip, you have to get the equipment down to the airstrip, you have to get the aircraft loaded and fueled and all that stuff, your pilots have to check weather and flight plan and all that, and about 100 other things have to happen before you can go. Many of them can happen simultaneously, so the times aren't additive, but at least one of them always takes longer than you expected that it would, and you're looking at probably 4 hours minimum to get this done. I'm guessing that an absolutely flawless plan and execution would have taken 8-10 hours minimum to get them somewhere in Benghazi, and then who knows how much longer it would have taken to get them where they needed to be on the ground. So no, that was not a viable option.

What is a legitimate question that needs to be asked is how did we end up getting caught with our pants so far down on this one. And no, republican budget cuts had absolutely nothing to do with it. With the cuts, there were still plenty of assets to secure the area, if they had been properly assigned and employed. And the real assets that were needed to react to any problem were military, not state department security forces, and republicans did not cut the military budget to my knowledge. How hard was it to figure out that a consulate in Benghazi on the 9/11 anniversary was probably a higher risk target than the embassy in Ottawa?

Again Owl, this is where you jump off the rails. This wasn't an embassy and it really isn't in the ME as far as I'm concerned. It was in Africa in a relatively unknown city to most in the US, half the size of the capital of Tripoli. There has been no known intelligence to come forth to indicate it was any sort of target on 9/11. And this certainly wasn't any sort of known target on a 9/11 anniversary...certainly not the likes of any target in the US or other volatile places closer to the true ME. The intelligence uncovered since points to an attack planned only 10 days before it was carried out.

Yes, he could have and should have had more of a security detail with him. But there was more than enough of a security team at the nearby CIA annex. That's where the help should have come from. And you're right...this has nothing to do with the State Department...and therefore Hillary. That just goes more to prove that this latest committee is nothing more than a political operation as McCarthy intimated.

Beyond her taking direct responsibility for lack of security in Benghazi...Hillary pretty much has no other involvement in this.

(10-26-2015 04:31 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Again Owl, this is where you jump off the rails. This wasn't an embassy and it really isn't in the ME as far as I'm concerned. It was in Africa in a relatively unknown city to most in the US, half the size of the capital of Tripoli. There has been no known intelligence to come forth to indicate it was any sort of target on 9/11. And this certainly wasn't any sort of known target on a 9/11 anniversary...certainly not the likes of any target in the US or other volatile places closer to the true ME. The intelligence uncovered since points to an attack planned only 10 days before it was carried out.

It seems to me that if you're going to allege jumping off the rails, you ought at least to provide some true and relevant support for such a claim, which you fail to do here. I don't think that whether you consider Benghazi to be part of the ME or not is a relevant criterion. It's in an Arab Muslim country where we participated in a recent regime change, and in the part of that country where a terrorist organization known to be opposed to us held significant power, enough to be de facto in control. If this wasn't known to be some 9/11 anniversary target, it certainly should have been, given that it turns out that's where the attack occurred. Your argument seems to be that this was too insignificant a place to be on our radar screen. If that were the case, then that prompts what to me is one of the very most significant of the unanswered questions--WTF was our ambassador doing hanging out there instead of at the embassy hundreds of miles away? If Benghazi is truly as insignificant as you seem to want to portray it as being, then WTF was going on there?

Quote:Yes, he could have and should have had more of a security detail with him. But there was more than enough of a security team at the nearby CIA annex. That's where the help should have come from. And you're right...this has nothing to do with the State Department...and therefore Hillary. That just goes more to prove that this latest committee is nothing more than a political operation as McCarthy intimated.

I have repeatedly criticized republicans for going overboard trying to pin this on Hillary. I think she bears some culpability, certainly at the very least for the "video" lying cover-up attempt. But I doubt that she was down in the weeds where the decisions that screwed the pooch were made. I want to know who was responsible. If it was Hillary, then she needs to suffer the consequences. If it was somebody else, I'm fine with that as long as that somebody else suffers appropriate consequences. The problem is that we really have not had any serious investigations. We've had several whitewashes and at least one witch hunt. They've all been nothing more than political operations to achieve ulterior motives. Both of them are wrong. I mean, come on, we had one investigation that concluded that there were no intel failures. Seriously? This whole thing was a ginormous series of intel failures, from the events of 9/11/12 to the ridiculous video story--the latter in particular being either a huge intel failure or an outright li by our nation's leaders. Those are the only two possible alternatives, which do you prefer? What we need is one legitimate investigation that properly and correctly identifies the culprits and takes appropriate action to punish them and prevent a recurrence.

Same thing with the IRS investigation. Unlike republicans, I'm perfectly happy with Lerner being the culprit--so long as (1) she really is the culprit, and (2) *itch does 40 to 50 for it. Of course, I don't have factual knowledge, but I'd place a hefty bet that if anybody did go after Lerner, her defense team would very quickly produce a stack of emails that ties the whole thing to places much higher than her. Which is, of course, why she will never be prosecuted. It's the Washington way. And quite frankly, I'm pretty sick of it. People are held accountable every day in the real world--criminal convictions, civil damages awards, firings, you name it. It's time our bureaucrats and politicians were held accountable. Of course, as long as bureaucrats and politicians are writing the rules, the chances that will happen are slim and none.

Has this been discussed? Clinton tells daughter "Al-Qaeda" type group was responsible them tells public it was because of video. How does she answer that in a one on one debate?

(10-29-2015 07:02 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

Has this been discussed? Clinton tells daughter "Al-Qaeda" type group was responsible them tells public it was because of video. How does she answer that in a one on one debate?

And then the follow up: And then you told the families of the dead it was all about the video as well. How the hell do you sleep with yourself? And how the hell could this country sleep with you as President?