The Benghazi Slaughter – FINALLY SOMEONE POINTS OUT THE OBVIOUS CIA “COVER STORY”…

HatTip to Senator Lyndsey Graham who finally points out the primary problem with the White House hiding behind the CIA angle to the Benghazi story.

A recent CIA “press briefing” has led to a new, but not unexpected, evolutionary narrative explaining the insufferable incompetence and obfuscation surrounding the Benghazi slaughter.

As we pointed out the White House in general, and President Obama specifically, intentionally shifted the deflection narrative to hide behind the CIA, and secrets, with the Benghazi story. Both the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times were utilized along with CNN’s Suzanne Kelly to claim the State Department was a cover story for the CIA activity on the ground. In essence the White House claimed that the CIA was in control of Benghazi operations INCLUDING THE SECURITY.

The White House and Administration used the New York Times, CNN, and The Wall Street Journal to sell their spin. But we, along with many others including Bing West, were not buying it.  As Bing West wrote:

 [...] Identical stories appeared in the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. The Times explained that, “The account, given by the senior officials who did not want to be identified, provided the most detailed description to date of the C.I.A.’s role.”

So what’s going on here? The national-security staff in the Obama White House has a standard operating procedure. If a military action, such as killing bin Laden, succeeds, then immediately leak selected details to shape the narrative to the political advantage of Mr. Obama. If the action is botched, as in Benghazi, then say nothing and tell the quiescent press that there is no story worth pursuing. If questions persist, the second line of defense is an investigation that wlll drag on for months. For instance, bureaucrats in the Justice Department are still investigating the leaks last spring about the U.S. cooperation with Israel in the software sabotage — cyber warfare — of Iranian centrifuges.

If pesky Fox News persists in asking questions, then the third line of defense is to give the nod to the CIA to leak a diversionary story to favored news outlets and reporters. Thus the leaks to the Washington Post and New York Times showing that CIA operatives did try to rescue their comrades. Then authorize the CIA to go public with the same timeline, further throwing the press off the trail. The New York Times, the recipient of record for White House leaks, published on November 3 a diversionary story on its front page, fixating upon the CIA director, General Petraeus. This implied that the main issue about Benghazi centered around CIA secrecy — a tautology irrelevant to the real cover-up.

The intent is to cause the press and the public to lose interest in a story that seems exhaustively repetitive, while the key issues are never addressed.

Finally a reporter asked Senator Lyndsey Graham why he was fixated on this being an issue and why the CIA control was not good enough for him, because of his request for a “special committee” to begin hearings.

Lyndsey Graham points out the obvious.  I paraphrase:

If the CIA was in charge of the Benghazi operation, and the CIA was in charge of the security, as the White House would have you believe, THEN WHY DID THE PEOPLE ON THE GROUND NOT KNOW THAT?

Why were the people on the ground asking for more security specifically from the State Dept?   If the CIA was in charge, the people on the ground carrying out the operation sure as hell were not aware of that, INCLUDING AMBASSADOR STEVENS, who in his last cable had stated he was not comfortable with security and requested additional protection for their endeavors FROM THE STATE DEPT.  NOT THE CIA.

Thank You Lyndsey Graham for pointing out the key issue we have been trying to hammer home.   The CIA angle was, and is, a cover story, only a cover story, and completely a cover story to protect the Obama Administration.

Remember the al-jazzera reporter who found copies of Ambassador Stevens requests on October 26th?   Just laying around….?   And people were wondering why the FBI did not find them after they “supposedly” conducted their ground investigation.  Remember that?

Well, why the heck would they take such evidence when it completly contradicted the story the FBI (Mueller) and the Administration (Panetta/Obama) were selling.?   Of course they would not pick up such e-mails and cables as evidence – Requests to the State Dept. sure dont add up to the BS CIA story the administration was trotting out, do they?

Now read this again from CIA Director General Petraeus:

Does this statement from Petraeus take on new meaning now?

About these ads
This entry was posted in Benghazi-Gate, CIA, Clinton(s), Egypt & Libya Part 2, Election 2012, media bias, Obama re-election, Sept 11, Uncategorized, White House Coverup. Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to The Benghazi Slaughter – FINALLY SOMEONE POINTS OUT THE OBVIOUS CIA “COVER STORY”…

  1. Here is a snippet of the type of questions from the media. This one pissed off John McCain – The reporter wanted to compare the emails sent to Florida socialite Jill Kelley to the murder of four Americans in Benghazi on 9-11. McCain responded,

    Like

    • Sharon says:

      Well, it’s nice to know that he’s capable of actually getting indignant about issues concerning the security of our nation. In 2008, it seemed like he wasn’t.

      Like

      • czarowniczy says:

        Wish he’d have become that indignant regarding his fellow POWs he abandoned in Vietnam. Then again, Benghazi will become as moot as the POW issues have become. McCain is a professional politician – his suits come with built-in spines.

        Like

        • Sharon says:

          It’s also interesting that Lyndsey Grahamnesty apparently has stirred himself to act all indignant. I wonder what that’s about? Is he actually concerned enough to act like an American Senator? Or is he working some angle. Again.

          Like

          • Sam says:

            Lindsey Graham heard he was going to be “tea partied” in 2014, that he would have a conservative challenger in the next primary. If that’s really true, then he will act more conservative for a while at least.

            Like

        • bob e says:

          my friend…he did not abandon anyone in vietnam…not even close..he refused early release from the Hanoi Hilton ( special treatment father being an admiral) so as to keep faith with his fellow prisoners. he was exceptionally brave, heroic…almost dying from over 31 months in solitary. but he is indeed a politician now & i like the old McCain better.

          Like

        • canadacan says:

          Beg to differ about Vietnam he spent 5 and a half years in the Hun or Hilton 3 more than was necessary he could have going home sorry I don’t like that remark if you can defend it go ahead. his body was smashin is health ruined because of what McCain had to go through in Vietnam.

          Like

          • canadacan says:

            You should read faith. Of my fathers an excellent book McCain’s first memoirs McCain has his moments politically you could never doubt his courage when he was in the military.

            Like

        • Sharon says:

          POWs “he abandoned in Vietnam.”………….I slipped by that earlier because I was hot about something else………..what are you referring to? I agree with the other statements here that his military service and his personal courage in Vietnam were astonishing to say the least. Completely different situation….I am not aware that anyone ever suggested he abandoned anybody??? (….which, the other issue, does not equal being a courageous political presence in 2008 or 2012….)

          What did you mean by that reference about him abandoning POWs?

          Like

    • Sharon says:

      John McCain was in fine form on C-Span this evening, apparently recorded from the floor of the Senate earlier today. As I say–in fine form–making the statements and asking the questions that were being written on these screens 5-6 weeks ago. Anybody know where all of our fine Treepers can submit forms for some kind of consultation remuneration or something? It’s just depressing.

      As I listened to him, I desperately wanted to hear something different, something we didn’t already know, something innovative, some creative instinct for an angle or leverage for exposing the truth. Nope. Nuthin’.

      And then, once again, Lyndsey Graham rolls out the motives for looking for the truth–”we need to be sure this never happens again.” Oh. Ok.

      How about establishing the level and source of the malfeasance and incompetence and disloyalty and treasonous failure to fulfill oaths that were supposedly taken without mental reservation–and PUNISHING SOME PEOPLE FOR FAILING TO DO THEIR DUTY?

      I couldn’t care less about the issue of whether it ever “happens again….” HEADS NEED TO ROLL BECAUSE IT HAPPENED. PERIOD.

      Like

      • GracieD says:

        Sharon, would you mind if I steal this as part of a letter that I am writing to my Senator?

        Like

        • Sharon says:

          Help yourself….sometimes it just makes ya mad enough to spit, GracieD. :(

          Like

        • Sharon says:

          I’m sure you read this, but this paraphrase of L. Graham’s argument from the post above is another profile that makes me want to throw things–the man’s got an excellent point:

          Lyndsey Graham points out the obvious. I paraphrase:

          If the CIA was in charge of the Benghazi operation, and the CIA was in charge of the security, as the White House would have you believe, THEN WHY DID THE PEOPLE ON THE GROUND NOT KNOW THAT?

          Why were the people on the ground asking for more security specifically from the State Dept? If the CIA was in charge, the people on the ground carrying out the operation sure as hell were not aware of that, INCLUDING AMBASSADOR STEVENS, who in his last cable had stated he was not comfortable with security and requested additional protection for their endeavors FROM THE STATE DEPT. NOT THE CIA.

          Like

  2. Arkindole says:

    17th February, and nearly everyone in Benghazi questioned, didn’t know the CIA annex was where it was. Everyone knew 17th February was solely in charge of the main compound–read the U.S. correspondence with State. What does that tell you about **what the CIA was doing** and **what was stored** in the “CIA annex”.

    Like

    • I’d guess they were attempting to assist the installation of a “puppet government”. A necessity to ensuring their success would require operatives to participate in covert reconnaissance/ intelligence missions aimed at preventing the opposing operatives from amassing an armed force capable of disrupting their puppet show. So I’d guess CIA operatives were aggressively interrogating (water-boarding) prisoners. also: Maybe the annex was storing a cache of weapons & munitions to support CIA covert operations. Just a wild guess, though I’d have no problem with them doing so.

      Like

  3. Mikado Cat says:

    Looks like Broadwell’s Benghazi prisoner statement on Oct 26th had its source from Fox News, which I now recall reading at the time. Two or three militia members were captured and then turned over to Libyan authorities when the annex was evacuated.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/post/fox-news-and-those-benghazi-detainees/2012/11/14/540522a0-2e68-11e2-89d4-040c9330702a_blog.html

    Like

  4. ctdar says:

    Why is it that crisis after crisis we only hear from the same Senators and Reps speaking up? 50 Senators and over 400 Representatives, think the public would be familiar with more than a handful of names

    Like

    • Sharon says:

      Even on an individual basis, I don’t think they are all that concerned. As a group they certainly aren’t concerned, or it wouldn’t have taken going on ten weeks to start speaking up in some persistent way.

      Most of them are not authorized to speak about it–and some of them are incapable of cause and effective reasoning generally. (Don’t forget about Guam tipping over and our men on Mars…directly from the mouths of Congressmen)

      Like

  5. boricuafudd says:

    A Time magazine report of the Benghazi incident, from a Libyan commander that was on the ground, said that the “Marines” that arrived from Tripoli, did not know how to get to the Annex, all they had was GPS coordinates. You would think that the CIA would know how to get to their safehouse.

    Another point is if the CIA was conducting the operation, are we expected to believe that they did not have any air support? Via armed drone or Spectre or helos. Don’t buy it.

    Like

    • GracieD says:

      I don’t buy it either, bori. This is the CIA we are talking about, headed at the time by a brilliant military mind. I say, no way would they leave their people unprotected. The GPS part of your comment got my ADD mind a whirlin’…GPS is pretty much useless in the Swamp. Some parts of the Atchafalaya Basin are “dead zones”, where you can’t get a cell signal. The trees are so dense as to prevent proper GPS reception. I knew there was a reason why I love the Swamp so much! :D

      Like

  6. Sharon says:

    This is going to grow as many heads as the Zimmerman case apparently. You want to twist your brain into knots, have a looksee at this:

    http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2012/11/has-petraeus-affair-exposed-bigger.html

    Excerpt:

    THESE SPECULATIVE POINTS LEAD TO A FEW BASIC QUESTIONS THAT NEED TO BE ANSWERED:

    MAYBE REZKO AND KHAWAM’S ARE FROM THE SAME EXTENDED FAMILY OR TRIBE?

    WERE THE KHAWAM TWINS SEXUALLY INVOLVED WITH PETRAEUS AND ALLEN OR WERE THEY “FACILITATING” COMMERCIAL VENTURES?

    IS THE GRAYSON WOLFE AT AKKADIAN PV THE FORMER HUSBAND OF NATALIE KHAWAM?

    PERHAPS THE INSTANCES KHAWAM WAS SEEN AS BEING VERY CLOSE AND ON THE VERGE OF BEING INAPPROPRIATELY INTIMATE WITH PETRAEUS WERE NOT SEXUAL – AS THE APPARENTLY JEALOUS BROADWELL BELIEVED, BUT MERCENARY AND COMMERCIAL?

    PERHAPS THE 30,000 EMAILS BETWEEN ALLEN AND KHAWAM WERE MERCENARY AND COMMERCIAL AND NOT SEXUAL?

    And the blogger preceded the piece with this:

    ALL CAPS IN DEFENSE OF LIBERTY IS NO VICE.

    :)

    It’s probably all true. May as well be.

    Like

  7. akathesob says:

    It seems as if it is all about to hit the proverbial fan.

    Like

  8. popeyes spinach brand says:

    Not just 4 dead Americans…Two of them most probably raped and tortured.

    Like

  9. thefirstab says:

    Happy Thursday y’all – thought this was interesting, popped right up when I was checking my email:

    http://news.yahoo.com/start-voice-petraeus-affair-conspiracy-theory-232314516.html

    Story and “theories” appear to be growing some mainsteam legs.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s