Skip to comments.Letting us in on a secret (CIA Benghazi)
Posted on 10/11/2012 7:17:31 AM PDT by RummyChick
When House Republicans called a hearing in the middle of their long recess, you knew it would be something big, and indeed it was: They accidentally blew the CIAs cover.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I find it interesting that the ambassador died of smoke inhalation. I don’t think he was “supposed to” die.
It was the State Department that made the Obama administration look like complete buffoons... One thing though it became clear without question that Obama LIE about an offensive video did not cause the deaths of 4 Americans.
Hey Dana, the charity arm of the D-n-C, the JonStewart media, carries the leaky buckets. The Republicans did not cause this mess and since we the people are funding liberals insanity we have a ‘right’ to know why there is such corruption, incompetence, and why the ‘Taliban is now inside the building’!
And Dana your ‘gotcha’ article says far more about you than the Republicans doing their Constitutional duty. 4 Americans were slaughtered while you and yours are mucking up a liar in chief. They work for US, while you and yours make a mockery of US by your incessant ridicule. Alinsky on you.
” - - - A State Department official assured him that the material was entirely unclassified and that the photo was from a commercial satellite.”
Did the Secretary of Statements Hilly send this un-named “State Department Official” to testify that the information was “entirely unclassified?”
Hilly needs to shift the murder of her Ambassador to Obama if Hilly is going to run for President in 2016.
Hilly is brutal. Keep an eye out for another Vince Foster incident.
“That still doesnt explain or excuse the fact that from day one Obama and Clinton knew this was a coordinated terrorist attack and not a spontaneous uprising in response to a video”
It kind of does explain it.
The excuse being - we couldn’t tell you that they targeted a CIA operation so we are going to make up some BS as cover.
After watching the full hearing yesterday, I believe Chaffetz knows quite a bit of what happened since he went to Benghazi. He probably talked to CIA there.
He is clearly upset.
Notice that Lamb said that it wasn’t money that kept them from providing more security.
In the murky world of intelligence- it is possible that the CIA told them not to bring in more of a presence because it would thwart some plan.
I don’t know if that happened...but it is possible.
Milbank said that the New York Times reported that about a dozen CIA operatives and contractors were evacuated from Benghazi.
The CIA doesn’t play nice. Dollars to donuts, we’re going to get the CIA’s version (anonymous, of course) within a couple of days. They won’t take kindly to being blamed for this whole mess when it was clearly the State Dept. who dropped the ball.
It does not take a rocket scientist to know they were CIA. The administration also said that we are conducting other covert activities in Libya.
The administration blew the cover on the CIA.
List of Liars:
The Obama Administration
Jay “Baghdad Bob" Carney
The Main Stream Media
Cable News excepting Fox
The liar in Chief Barack Hussein Obama
“The Republican lawmakers, in their outbursts, alternated between scolding the State Department officials for hiding behind classified material and blaming them for disclosing information that should have been classified. But the lawmakers created the situation by ordering a public hearing on a matter that belonged behind closed doors.”
This is about as intentionally convoluted psychobabble as I have ever read.
Hillbuzz thinks it was a planned kidnapping by Obama.
Perhaps the CIA messed up here and let all of this happen..they were suppose to protect Stevens and didn’t.
We kept hearing about the “annex” but now you know it is a CIA annex. Chaffetz stopped the Democrat who was asking about numbers that would have gotten into how many CIA were there.
It’s possible that the State Department considered sufficient personnel in totality between CIA and State.
Anyone that does not think that our embassies don’t have an Intelligence presence is being naive. Milbank is flailing his arms but how many ops have been exposed by name ala Kerry and Feinstein???
Quite naturally, Milbank only takes his argument to a point that serves his purposes.
The CIA has a presence at virtually ALL U.S. diplomatic facilities around the world. If they had a safe house/compound near the consulate, it would hardly be a surprise.
Here’s a better question: if the CIA had a presence in Benghazi, where were the operatives/security personnel on the night of September 11th? If the spooks had bugged out, why was Ambassador Stevens allowed to travel to Benghazi—without security—knowing the risks involved? And if there was a CIA presence in the city on that fateful day, why didn’t they come to the rescue of the consulate?
At least one of the dead SEALs was working on a project with the agency, attempting to track down missing MANPADs. He ran to the sound of gunfire and with his fellow SEAL, held off the attackers for a couple of hours. So, Mr. Milbank, where was the rest of the CIA contingent?
Of course the CIA was there. They were giving weapons to AQ terrorists and the Muslim Brotherhood to send into Syria or else they were frantically trying to buy back weapons they gave to the Islamists to oust Ghadaffi. Just because the CIA was there, does not mean that their purposes were on the up and up or even smart tactically. I agree fhat they were likely trying to clean ip some acrew up..they usually are...lol. Anything that Dana Milbank writes though is suspect as coming from Obama’s political strategists.
Obama and his minions are arming our enemies....that should be enough to impeach him and his whole cabinet...no matter what branch they hail from IMHO.
Good idea. Too bad he didnt think of that before putting the CIA on C-SPAN.
Dana, honey, I think the public had already figured that out before the hearings.
That's exactly what I thought of when reading the article, that Milbank is trying to pin this on the House Republicans! Does he really think we're that stupid? I only hope that Issa is on to this BS!
Your version has merit, but I believe the reason they didn’t provide more security was ideological and not logistical. Bolton was pointing to this on Greta last night. They wanted to entrust the security to Libyans.
Your take on blaming the video is very plausible.
I’m sure there are many ways to beef up security without it being obvious. It would be pretty crappy if the Ambassador and three other men ended up being collateral damage to cover up a CIA operation. If so, we really need to take some lessons from Mossad.
“This WP editorial is an after the Libya raid cover for Obamas Admin lapses and lies.”
I know that! The article is pure bs! That’s why I wanted “All” to read it! Guess I should have been clearer in my post.
CIA in Benghazi?
Color me shocked.....not!
The milbank article is so twisted in it’s logic. Spin, spin, spin!
Al Qaeda has has complete access to all US embassy properties since Obama bailed out a month ago. To pretend that this is still a secret is simply comical. Come on WaPo, you can do better than this.