Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So I wouldn't rule out that there could be more going on that what you see on the surface.
The names have changed and the events are altered but all of what's occurring now is reminiscent of times past regarding the executive branch.
That's not to say that this time it could all be taken at face value but to completely disregard the possibility because it's your side is completely dishonest. Ask yourself if this was occurring during Bush Jr.'s term would you all be wanting to ignore it or would you want to find out if there was more to this story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stargazzer
yup....something is being hidden and they think we are stupid....
Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner!!
Think about it. Why was the CIA there? The Ambassador was at a CIA safe house, not an embassy or an embassay safe house. Why would the Ambassador be at a CIA safe house?? Why did Ambassador Stevens travel with Navy SEALS who were on security detail and not Marines?
Why did the Ambassador just finish having dinner with a Turkish diplomat at a CIA safe house? Interestingly, we know the CIA safe house was already being watched during the time they were having dinner, yet the attack didn't begin until right after the Turkish diplomat safely left the CIA safe house.
My guess is we are running guns to al-Qeada.
Russia has claimed Syrian rebels have US-made Stinger missles.
The Ambassador and others who were killed in Benghazi were killed by Ansar al-Sharia, the same terrorist group through which I think we're running guns, (into Libya, and through Turkey to Syria - to al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood). In other words, we're using the Muslim Brotherhood to arm the rebels in Syria.
The cover-up: Obama is giving arms to our enemies and our enemies used our arms to kill the Ambassador (and the others).
I think: Obama, Hillary, and Panetta are up to their eyeballs in this. Petraeus was told to corroborate with whatever story the WH is concocting to cover this and Petraeus, being a true patriot, is refusing to lie under oath. I think Petraeus was then threatened with the loss of his career and marriage if he refuses to go along with it. Petraeus quickly resigned and admitted to infidelity, thus removing what the WH had hanging over him.
Last edited by CheyDee; 11-11-2012 at 08:48 PM..
Reason: grammar
Reporters like 'newenglandgirl' are suppose to think of scenarios like that in order to find the truth.
If that person were an 'investigative reporter', she would already know the answers to her questions. Paula has been interviewed or made speeches numerous times, and has said how she met him and how the book came to be. Some reporter.
After reviewing Paula Broadwell's speech and subsequent newspaperreporting, if Broadwell's account is accurate, it appears there were a couple of Libyan militia members being held prisoner at the CIA annex.
After reviewing Paula Broadwell's speech and subsequent newspaperreporting, if Broadwell's account is accurate, it appears there were a couple of Libyan militia members being held prisoner at the CIA annex.
All the pieces are starting to fit together.
(Note: there are two links above.)
She sounds psychotic. The threatening emails, then revealing what must surely be classified information.
I don't know that for certain - I only know what is in the links posted. It does seem like the first we're hearing about prisoners from her though and I would guess that was classified info. (I just read her Facebook page was just scrubbed, too.)
"FBI investigators confronted then CIA Director David Petraeus within the last six weeks about his relationship with biographer Paula Broadwell, Fox News has learned -- a detail that comes as lawmakers complain they did not know about the issue until Petraeus resigned Friday."
"Asked why the FBI did not brief Congress immediately when Petraeus’ name surfaced within the scope of the investigation, the source said decisions on notification “should all play out next week” -- a reference to a half dozen Capitol Hill hearings and briefings on the Benghazi consulate attack.
The source said the Bureau’s apparent decision not to notify relevant lawmakers, in this case the chair and ranking members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, was characterized as a “balance (between) the facts, the circumstances that apply, whether it is an ongoing criminal matter, whether concerns over intelligence have been resolved.”
The article referenced above is about why lawmakers didn't know about this before Petraeus' resignation, but the timeline fits with the theory Petraeus was only told because of Benghazi.
I'm wearing my tinfoil hat - but I'm still going along with this.
....except that the whole thing is being used as a diversion or tactic of some kind related to his Benghazi testimony...or other matters.
Yes of if must be "of some kind"...
I think the "some kind" is troll bait for idiots.
Personally I think that they tired to use this the same way that the helicopter crash got Carter when he was up for re-election. Truthfully if all is said and done, if the killing of Bin laden was a failure they would have used it the same way against Obama.
Last edited by stargazzer; 11-12-2012 at 03:29 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
