Posted on 11/18/2012 12:54:08 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Fox News’s now-famous Oct. 26 story on the tragedy of Benghazi carried this headline: “EXCLUSIVE: CIA operators were denied request for help during Benghazi attack, sources say.” Reaction to the story skewed toward the monster revelations in its first paragraph: namely, that the CIA chain of command had told security officials to “stand down” instead of jumping immediately to the assistance of a diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on the night of Sept. 11. The CIA, too, denied requests for military backup, according to the Fox News story.
Far, far less attention attached to a contention deep down in the Fox story:
According to a source on the ground at the time of the attack, the team inside the CIA annex had captured three Libyan attackers and was forced to hand them over to the Libyans. U.S. officials do not know what happened to those three attackers and whether they were released by the Libyan forces.
So the CIA had taken a few detainees. No big deal, right?
Right, until biographer Paula Broadwell came along. As news of her affair with CIA Director David Petraeus emerged, folks started mining the Broadwell public record. As first reported by IsraelNationalNews.com, Broadwell had given some remarks at the University of Denver on Oct. 26, the same day of the Fox News piece that frames this sprawling series of posts. And Broadwell was up on the news; she took a question about Petraeus’s handling of Benghazi and steered her audience to Fox!
So the most recent news that came out was a Fox News report by Jennifer Griffin. I got it on a distribution list I’m on, and it has some pretty insightful stuff in it, if you want to look for it.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Benghazi bump for later.....
Anyone remember; in following days; this statement referenced; and 'White House' (hive voice) insisting that Obama, was in fact; speaking generally. Generally; that is; until debate night; with Candy Crowley 'assist' in making Obama an even better liar.
Then of course; there was 'The View'. . .but; Obama is always safe in his lies; because he knows there are way tooo many. It is way of 'overwhelming the system'; impossible to keep on top of; makes truth of; before next one; hits the fan.
Have been asking same; still; see no evidence of any curiosity; and that in itself; is more than curious. Where ARE they? And WHY is it; they cannot comment ‘at all’. ..or so; apparently.
It seems that the press can’t even say ‘we tried to interview them but weren’t allowed to.’ Has the press been threatened?
I think our media is more like the media in the Third French Republic. Intellectuals like Zola were firmly on one side of the argument between the Republicans and the conservative in society. Hence, they simply screened out evidence that favored the other side. Obama thinks more like a Jacobin than a persons in the Anglo-American poltical tradition. So do many in the academic community. Journalists are half-educated lackeys who come from this same environment. We were better off then reporters were from working class families, like the characters in “Front Page,”
Now you’re going to make me study European History again. That’s OK, I enjoy it. You make some interesting points.
2. WHY did Sean Smith think they would die that night???
3. WHO ordered the SEALS to STAND DOWN that night??
4. WHY wasn't help sent to them that night??
5. WHY did ERIC NORDSTROM say "the TALIBAN IS IN THE BUILDING"? What building?? The Pentagon? The STATE DEPT....the WHITE HOUSE???
6. WHY hasnt PAnetta, Mueller, and HILLARY been called to testify???
HELLO REPUBLICANS?? and if there is ONE DECENT DEMOCRAT LEFT, HILLARY, PANETTA, MUELLER and these people need to TESTIFY as to what happened that night!!
Get off the "Who changed the talking points and get to the HEART lof the matter.....HOW DID THIS HAPPEN??
Having served in the Air Force in Libya during 1956-58 the news from that country has always caught my interest. Qaddafi was about my age. Libya was a Monarchy then. King Idris was a relatively passive ruler and Americans, British and Italians coexisted peacefully with the Arabs. It was a requirement at the time for all Air Force personnel to study Arabic language and customs. That began a fascination of middle eastern affairs for me. A few short years after departing Wheelus Air Base, outside Tripoli, Qaddafi overthrew King Idris in a bloodless coup. He banned the British, Italians and Americans, and took over Wheelus Air Base. Since that time the middle east has changed very little. It is volatile to say the least. How our government could believe they could get involved in that hornet nest without getting stung is beyond me.
But, you see, that is the question.....Why were American military personnel and equipment used to overthrow Gaddafi? I have never heard one reason put forth as to why he needed to go. Iraq....Weapons of Mass Destruction with a guy (Hussein) who had shown a willingness to attack his neighbors. Yeah, I guess I can see that. But Libya? Why? What’s the reason? There’s never even been an attempt to explain our overthrowing of that government. How brazen! We have communists in our own back yard in Nicaragua and the Democrats wet their pants screaming about us supplying the opposition. Have you heard even one Democrat complain about the American military intervention in Libya? Why is that?
All good questions, I’m sure we could all put together quite a list of them.
I think there is a whole lot more to this Jill Kelley woman then we know at this point too.
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.