Benghazi terrorist attacks and the Whistleblowers (interview, middle east, Israeli, arsenal)
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.
How is what the republicans doing any different? They are "campaigning" with this show so that they can get elected. Look under the table at their hidden agenda.
If anyone was to take these hearings serious, then they need to look beyond Clinton and Rice. They should be asking questions about the CIA and what they were doing in the Annex, which relates to the "diplomatic mission". Did the diplomatic mission fall under the CIA jurisdiction, or the State Dept?
If you can bear to read something that is longer than two sentences or one brief paragraph, it draws attention to some interesting questions that should be asked and to whom, it widens the thought process to include other aspects that should be addressed.
Maybe the hearings need to be closed so that EVERYTHING can come out? What we are seeing is glossing over a situation, rather than getting to the heart of it. There is alot of information that is not public but those involved in the hearing are privvy to it and can use it in a closed hearing..
So it's your contention that everything that is ever put out to the public by any government entity, or any corporate entity for that matter, is a first draft? That documents don't have to pass through many hands, each of which make their own revisions, before a final document is produced? Man, you must live in a cave.
I've seen documents that went from 20 pages to 50 due to revisions. I've also seen 50 pages reduced to 20 due to revisions. The only hands that the CIA's talking points were passed around to for revisions were the hands in the WH.
Just how big do you think the original CIA talking points document was? 5 pages? 10 pages? 50 pages?? Apparently the WH carved it up and the talking points dropped considerably.
Because Hicks didn't have input into what the CIA says and nobody cared what he thought as evidenced by the FACT that prior to going on the talk show circuit NOBODY asked him about the newly minted talking points.
I'm sure CIA will be questioned at some point and if that happens they're going to point fingers. Where? Well that depends who keeps tossing 'em under the bus.
It's not like they didn't WARN the administration about the likelihood of attack prior to the event itself.
They are just staying true to form in the president's administration, they did not care to hear input from Stevens on his concerns over security either.
Only 3 revisions have been unclassified. You don't know which 3 were unclassified.
The "best" ones of course!
Quote:
Originally Posted by OICU812
They are just staying true to form in the president's administration, they did not care to hear input from Stevens on his concerns over security either.
You remind me of something. Throughout this thread I've heard "Stevens knew it was dangerous so why'd he go" and "he went there on his own knowing the risks". Well low and behold it turns out testimony shows (Hicks talking to Stevens) Hillary SENT him there. Whooops.
Though the data is labeled as sensitive, it is not classified material.
This data documents in a way that is now public, the perilous environment existing in Libya, providing a graphic description of the armed militias who carry out bombings, murders and kidnappings of government officials and others who try to challenge the lawlessness.
Because Hicks didn't have input into what the CIA says and nobody cared what he thought as evidenced by the FACT that prior to going on the talk show circuit NOBODY asked him about the newly minted talking points.
I'm sure CIA will be questioned at some point and if that happens they're going to point fingers. Where? Well that depends who keeps tossing 'em under the bus.
It's not like they didn't WARN the administration about the likelihood of attack prior to the event itself.
I would have found it extremely strange for the U.N, Ambassador to have contacted Hicks directly to determine what occurred in Benghazi. For better or worse we are dependent on our intelligence agencies to do their jobs. If the can't, won't or were prevented from doing their jobs then that is what we should be focusing on.
The fact that Hicks was asked and a big deal was made over whether or not Susan Rice contacted him prior to the Sunday shows just shows the partisan nature of the hearings.
Though the NYT article, ”U.S. Approved Weapons for Libya Rebels Fell into Jihadis’ Hands,” about the Benghazi affair doesn’t go into detail about what the CIA was doing in Benghazi, it raises a significant issue that is likely to be at the root of why there was an attack on both the special mission compound and the CIA Annex compound.
The NYT refers to the concern US government officials involved in the program raise about the problems created by the US government helping to provide weapons to insurgents fighting in Libya and Syria. According to the NYT, what these Islamic militants will do with these weapons worries high level US government national security officials.
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.