Posts Tagged ‘Central Intelligence Agency’

Benghazi Part III: Now with completely irrelevant questions

November 20, 2012 Leave a comment

No history montage today folks.  If you need to know how we got here, feel free to click herehere, here, and here.  In fact, please click all the foregoing because it makes my total numbers go up, which only increases my self-esteem.  So CIA Director/General Petraeus quit his job because he had an affair with some broad who wrote a book about him.  Eventually, that whole thing became an episode of the Jerry Springer Show, complete with some FBI guy sending a shirtless photo to the lady who approached the FBI about angry emails being sent to her by the Petraeus mistress.  The timing of the Director’s resignation seemed odd, since the FBI knew about the affair since late summer, but no action was taken until just before Petraeus was scheduled to testify in front of Congress regarding Benghazi (not to mention just days after Barry’s re-election).

Since then, Petraeus has agreed to testify behind closed doors, because apparently Americans don’t get to know what their employees are doing with all those taxes.  The entire focus of the meeting appears to be who told UN Ambassador Susan Rice to tell everyone else that the attack was caused by some YouTube video about Muhammed that no one watched, when others claimed everyone knew it was a terrorist attack almost immediately.

Not that Muhammed

Patraeus proceeded to agree with the other sources, and in doing so, contradict his earlier behind-closed-doors explanation.  Yes, everyone did know it was a terrorist attack almost immediately.  So someone gave Susan Rice lies to read to America about how quickly we knew the attack wasn’t the result of a bad movie review.  Today we learned that someone at the Department of National Intelligence changed Rice’s lines from “terrorist attack” to “angry protestors who happened to have grenade launchers sitting around the house.”  All of this has taken about a week.  To all of this I ask: Who Cares?

Does it really matter why Susan Rice stated it was a protest over a video?  Does it even matter who told her to say that?  Isn’t it more important that Barry himself proceeded to tell both Univision and The View that it was a spontaneous protest something like a week later?  Or better yet, aren’t a whole bunch of things surrounding the entire attack significantly more important than why Rice claimed a terrorist attack was a protest?

I submit the following questions are far more important than any of the questions previously asked by Congress:

          1.  Why were repeated requests for additional security in Benghazi repeatedly denied?

          2.  Why would Ambassador Stevens choose to meet with someone in Benghazi on the anniversary of 9/11, when he knew it lacked sufficient security?

          3.  Who was Ambassador Stevens meeting with that night, and why?

          4.  Who knew about the meeting and signed off on it?

          5.  Did any of the terrorists know about the meeting?

          6.  Why were reports from Benghazi, that an attack was imminent, completely ignored by whomever received the reports?

          7.  Why did it take 19 hours to get any military assets to Benghazi, even though everyone knew about the attack approximately 20 minutes after it started, and a live feed from an unmanned drone was being watched in the White House, in real time?

          8.  Is there any truth to the report from a Fox News source that Navy SEALs were repeatedly told to stand down after they reported hearing the attack as it was happening?

          9.  Is there any truth to the rumor that terrorists were being held captive, and interrogated, at the Benghazi facility?

These questions are all more important than who told Susan Rice to lie about the true nature of the attack.  It’s no mystery that the Obama Administration doesn’t like calling terrorism by its name.  These are the questions that the President should be made to answer.  If he refuses to answer them, than he should be impeached.  Will he be made to answer them?  Probably not.  But I’m sure the Repubs will make every effort to make sure we think they’re trying to make him answer them.


Benghazi Chapter 2: Generals, Timeliness, and Sex Under the Desk

November 12, 2012 1 comment

If you thought Benghazi was weird before, then you should probably sit down.  Before the election, all we knew about Benghazi was that four Americans were killed over a seven hour period, during an attack by a group of heavily armed protestors, and that the remaining facts were still unclear.  Of course, the conspiracy nuts out there thought the whole “we’re looking into it” thing was simply an effort by the Administration to stonewall until after the election.  Fools.  Well, my sources are telling me that Barry was actually telling the truth when he said he didn’t know much about the attack.   See, what happened is, he DVR’d the live feed of the attack so he could watch it later without commercials, but became too busy with the whole election thing to see it.

Just kidding.  I don’t have any sources, and Barry would never DVR an attack on Americans…unless it was to watch “Nashville,” which conveniently aired on September 12.

Barry LUVS country music.

Now that the election is over, however, hold on to your hat!  First, during the weekly Friday night document dump, the Pentagon released a timeline revealing that it took more than 19 hours for any military assets to arrive in Libya.

But there have been persistent questions about whether the Pentagon should have moved more rapidly to get troops into Libya or had units closer to the area as the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on America approached. In particular, there was at least a 19-hour gap between the time when Panetta first ordered military units to prepare to deploy – between midnight and 2 a.m. local time in Tripoli – and the time a Marine anti-terrorism team landed in Tripoli, which as just before 9 p.m.

Why?  According to Pentagon chief Leon Panetta, the situation was “murky.”  It’s hard to believe that it was 19 hours murky, however, considering the consulate had notified the State Dept. about an expected attack three hours before it started, and that everyone, including the White House, was notified of the attack only 20-30 minutes after it began.  In other words, we still don’t know why it took everyone so friggin’ long to respond to the attack.

Also on Friday, we all learned that CIA Director General David Petraeus was resigning his position, effective immediately, because of an extramarital affair he had with his biographer.  The Administration, and its surrogates in the media, have obviously claimed the timing of the resignation has nothing to do with Benghazi or the fact that Patraeus was scheduled to testify before Congress this week.  The resignation follows the “retirement” of our head guy in Northern Africa (which is where Libya is located on the map. #geographybee).  General Carter Ham reportedly redirected an unarmed drone to the scene just 17 minutes after the attack began, and allegedly objected to orders to “stand down” after the first reports of the attack came in.

According to the FBI, however, the govt. already knew about Petraeus’s indiscretions from affair-related emails discovered this last summer.  So why did the resignation happen now?  It’s clear that the White House has been pointing its finger at the CIA since Benghazi hit the papers.  Is Petraeus the fall guy?  Or could it be that Petraeus leaked secrets to his mistress, which we all found out about when she gave a speech at the University of Denver on October 26.

‘I don’t know if a lot of you have heard this, but the CIA annex had actually  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,’ Broadwell declared during the speech, at the University of Denver.

The CIA denied the existence of the alleged prison in Benghazi, but that’s to be expected.  Still though, was the resignation forced as a result of the speech, thus making its timing just a coincidence with Petraeus’s upcoming Benghazi testimony, or is it just a cover?

Why was the FBI investigating the head of the CIA in the first place?  It is being claimed that the FBI got involved when the mistress sent threatening emails to some random woman named Jill Kelley, and Kelley went to the FBI.  During its investigation, the feds apparently found the scandalous emails between the mistress and Petraeus.  I bet I couldn’t get the FBI to investigate the threatening emails I receive on a daily basis.  Just sayin’.

This whole thing is really weird, and is only going to get weirder.  Closing quote by the mistress’s father:

He told the Daily News: ‘This is about something else  entirely, and the truth will come out.’

Don’t bet on it.


Fox News has a source confirming the mistress’s story:

A well-placed Washington source confirms to Fox News that there were Libyan  militiamen being held at the CIA annex in Benghazi and that their presence was  being looked at as a possible motive for the staged attack on the consulate and  annex that night.

According to multiple intelligence sources who have served in Benghazi, there  were more than just Libyan militia members who were held and interrogated by CIA contractors at the CIA annex in the days prior to the attack. Other prisoners  from additional countries in Africa and the Middle East were brought to this  location.

I wonder if they were water-boarded.  That would be awesome.

Dead Men Tell No Tales (now with repaired links)

October 26, 2012 5 comments

I’ve watched a lot of movies about the CIA and stuff, and the whole Benghazi thing is certainly starting to resemble them.  Before we begin, while I don’t listen to him much (since he’s a little too dramatic), I have to give Glenn Beck credit.  He’s covering the murders in Benghazi far better than anyone else; and the national media is barely covering it at all.  The whole thing is getting pretty weird.  In fact, it’s becoming a little like the movie “JFK,” which, as my wife will admit, I watch a lot, and have decided that it’s 100% true no matter what some lame reenactment by the Discovery Channel tells me.

We wrote about this two days ago.  You can find that article here.  When asked about the emails that went to the White House just 20-30 minutes after the attack began, the Administration had no comment.  Since then, some stuff has happened.  First, we learned that Barry gave an interview to 60 Minutes on September 12, the day after the Libya attacks.  In the interview, he admits terrorists were behind the murders, which makes sense, being that we knew within two hours of the attack’s completion that terrorists were behind it.  Curiously, the interview never aired.  Why?  It was certainly relevant to what just happened the day before.

This morning, CIA head Leon Panetta decided to throw himself into the frey, by asserting,

‘You don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on, without having some real-time information about what’s taking place,’ Panetta said.

The whole “we didn’t know what was going on” theme has become tired, since various reports indicate that both the White House and Pentagon were receiving emails and had a live video feed from a drone flying over the area.  Oh, and how much more information do you need than a mob of people shooting at a building containing our Ambassador?

And then there’s the following information, which has just come out:

Former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were part of a small team who were at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. Consulate where Ambassador  Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When they heard the shots fired, they radioed to inform their higher-ups to tell them what they were hearing and requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to  ‘stand down,’ according to sources familiar with the exchange. An hour later, they called again to headquarters and were again told to ‘stand down.’ (Emphasis added).

Instead of followng orders to do nothing, Woods took it upon himself to organize a few people and go to the consulate to help out anyway.  They evacuated the consulate, then returned to headquarters.  What happened next is equally incredible.

At that point, they called again for military support and help because they were  taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied. There were  no communications problems at the annex, according those present at the  compound. The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In  fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a  heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security  officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested  back-up support from a Specter gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special  Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground  involved in intense firefights. The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more  than four hours — enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just  480 miles away, to arrive. Fox News has also learned that two separate Tier One  Special operations forces were told to wait, among them Delta Force  operators.

Both Woods and Doherty were killed by a mortar at 4:00 a.m. Libya time, some seven hours after the attack began.  You should read the entire article linked above.  It’ll make you very angry.

The response to this attack by the White House was an abomination.  And don’t let them tell you the CIA didn’t give the information, or it was the State Dept.’s fault.  They all work for Barry.  He’s the Commander in Chief of our military.  In fact, handling stuff like this is literally the one thing the President has 100% responsibility over.  I’ve implied it before, but I’ll say it outright now: the Administration wanted Stevens dead.  There is absolutely no other explanation for why it repeatedly refused additional security before the incident, and refused to take action during the incident.  And now they’re lying to everyone in an effort to cover it up.

Oh, and what did our leaders say to Woods’ father as his body was rolled onto the tarmac at Andrews Air Force Based?

Obama: Sorry.

Hillary: Sorry, and we’ll “make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted.”

Biden: “Did your son always have balls the size of cue balls?”

Good Lord.  And these are the people who are going to protect this country?

Trust me. It’s better you don’t know.

May 4, 2011 2 comments

Nothing to see here.

My favorite movie is, without question, ‘JFK.’  You know, the one that does such a good job of convincing you that JFK was killed by more than just Lee Harvey?  During the movie, Kevin Costner’s character asks the media, “Is a government worth preserving when it lies to the people?”    Now, I’m not a conspiracy nut.  I’m not a Truther, a Birther, or one of those guys who thinks the moon landing happened in a Hollywood backlot.  You can count me as one of those guys who doesn’t think Oswald acted alone, however.  Why?  Because our government lies to us by omission all the time.  In other words, it has all kinds of information about Ruby, Oswald, and everyone else, that it has yet to release.  Why hide it?

This dovetails into a comment made by one of my many many readers the other day (did I mention there are lots of readers?).  She asked me, and I’m paraphrasing, why I spend so much time complaining and not enough time trying to find out who’s actually in charge (and thus, to blame).  Well, I complain because that’s just what I do.  And it’s my blog.  Figuring out who’s in charge?  Good question. 

You may ask how these two topics are related?  Costner’s best movie this side of Bull Durham and a reader’s question about power?  The answer to the question is found in the movie.  Those with the real power are all of the unelected government employees who decide what information should be given to the public.  Administrations may come and go, but the employees of the CIA, FBI, DOD, FDA, TGIF, etc. remain, and we can’t even vote them out of office.  Yet they possess signficant information that is kept from the American public. Why was former FBI head J. Edgar Hoover so powerful?  Because he had files on everyone.  Knowledge is power, and we’re regularly kept in the dark.

This, of course, leads me to breaking news.  Our Prez just decided that none of us regular folks get to see the photo of OBL at room temperature.  It’s probably now classified.  Like hundreds of thousands of other documents.  We’ve become children who aren’t able to handle these sorts of things.  How about those computers allegedly taken from Binny’s compound?  Is there anything on them?  Could be.  But all we’ll get is a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no.’  Bin Laden’s photos of impressively hairy naked women are not doubt vital to national security.

I see what you did there.

Many ask why no one trusts the government anymore.  The answer is simple: the government is hiding all kinds of crap from us under the guise of national security.  And we do little about it.  Wikileaks dumps thousands of classified documents onto the internet, and most of it proves to be completely irrelevant nonsense about Hillary Clinton thinking someone else is crazy.  National security or just Hillary being a chick (ZING)?  Why do we need to wait for some Swedish guy to steal stuff that already belongs to us, just to show it to us?  Don’t our tax dollars pay for it?  Think about it.  We bought the helicopter that carried the SEALS, whose salaries we pay, to shoot OBL with guns and bullets that we purchased.  And the camera that took the picture of the dead terrorist?  We paid for that too.  But we can’t see the picture?

So, what have you learned?  Well nothing really.  None of the foregoing was probably a mystery to any of you…especially you over there, in the tin hat.  What have I learned?  That, until I hear differently, the government killed Kennedy, a UFO crashed in the New Mexico desert, Barry was born in Kenya, and OBL is currently drinking a mojito in Cuba.


%d bloggers like this: