New Info About Benghazi

[Clean]

The CIA apparently had a large prescence at Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, the night of the attack. They were probably running weapons, including surface to air missles, through Benghazi into the hands of the Syrian rebels. That may explain why the CIA didn't want any military reinforcements. They didn't want anyone to find out what was really going on there. It also may explain why the Obama Administration tried to cover up what really happened.

Apparently the CIA has gone to extraordianry, perhaps even abusive, lengths to keep the lid on this thing since then.

This should give us something to talk about for the next few months besides Trayvon Martin.



In reply to:

---

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

Amazing that CNN would run a story with this much potential to damage Hillary and Obama. Let's see if they pursue it or let it drop after a day or two.

 

[pasotex]

Miss the point much?

 

[Uninformed]

Interesting story with many points.

 

[zork]

Why would they be afraid to come forward?

 

[huisache]

because congresss did not authorize the transfer? To progtect the Libyan government? I can think of a lot of reasons why those idiots would want to keep their dirty work secret.

Remember when the admin back in the 80s sent numerous people to congress to lie about selling arms to Iran and giving the money to contras?

This kind of behavior is not limited to senile republicans.

 

[Uninformed]

The Link
U.S. concludes Assad's forces used chemical weapons against Syrian rebels
By Reuters | Jun. 14, 2013 | 11:01 AM | 20



The United States has concluded that Syrian President Bashar Assad's forces used chemical weapons against rebel fighters and Washington will supply direct military assistance to the opposition, the White House said on Thursday.

The new assessment and decision came as Assad's surging forces and their Lebanese Hezbollah allies turned their guns on the north, fighting near the northern city of Aleppo and bombarding the central city of Homs after having seized the initiative by winning the open backing of Hezbollah last month and capturing the strategic town of Qusair last week.

With outgunned rebel forces desperate for weapons after their battlefield setbacks, U.S. President Barack Obama's deputy national security adviser, Ben Rhodes, said on Thursday the president had decided to provide "direct military support" to the opposition.

He would not specify whether the support would include lethal aid, such as weapons, which would mark a reversal of Obama's resistance to arming the rebels.



Perhaps we have been sending weapons to Syrian rebels for a long time in a proxy war with us on one side and Russia and Iran on the other.... If you look back you'll notice I've mentioned this many times on this board. However, on September 11, 2012 according to the administration we were not arming rebels...



Addendum:The Link

Wednesday, 10 July 2013 14:37
Obama Lobbies Reluctant Congress to Support Arming Syrian Rebels
Written by Alex Newman


Obama Lobbies Reluctant Congress to Support Arming Syrian Rebels

Despite the White House’s mistaken impression that Obama can arm jihadist Syrian rebels without permission from Congress, media reports indicate that the administration is lobbying lawmakers for a green light after key congressional committees rebuked the president’s deeply unpopular plan to send military aid to opposition forces in Syria. While members of Congress on both sides of the aisle fret about the potential for U.S. weapons to end up in the hands of al Qaeda and other terrorist groups currently fighting the Assad regime, the administration appears determined to go forward with its scheme.

 

[Seattle Husker]

This passage doesn't make sense to me:

In reply to:

---

---

 

[pasotex]

You are not paranoid enough.

 

[Uninformed]

I'm waiting to hear your argument. Banging on the table just creates noise.

 

[Horn6721]

Uni
I am sure BO ONLY ( wink wink) learned about what the CIA was doing when he read the same CNN article.

Even now he is issing a ' stern warning" to them and then he will issue a ' stern warning " to Russia.

 

[Seattle Husker]

If there were 35 CIA individuals joining in the fight then that would make more sense why no military aid was rushed in. There may have been a tactical decision that the embassy had the manpower to fight them off.

I don't mind an investigation but it does appear to me that this Rep. Wolf is grandstanding a bit ala Darrel Isis. Both are proclaiming a need to investigate, have the means to do so and even know the people but appear to be resistant for what I can only assume are political reasons.

As an aside, would anyone be surprised domestically that we were supplying weapons to Syrian rebels long before we publicly stated we intended to?

 

[zork]

It does make it difficult to make internet pronouncements when we don't have the details.

And when we don't know which meaning of "is" is being questioned it makes it more uncertain. We might as well start talking about the next topic.

But I am interested in what actually happened and why there was not more support sent immediately after it was determined that an attack was underway from the troops stationed at the airbase some hours away.

Much less why reporters were able to go in and assess the mess, pick up private belongings from the embassy, before our response arrived.

 

[Uninformed]

In reply to:

---

---