Ambassador killed -- something tells me there is more to it

[compared2what?]

lot of non-violents are getting put out early IIRC

He sure looks like a Useful Idiot. Maybe he even though he was working for the CIA or some shit. But if anything I think he was just working for Republican party criminals.

Yup. For some reason, it's hard not to feel bad for him, isn't it? I don't know exactly why, though. I mean, no matter what, he did kind of cross a line that a fully innocent and righteous person wouldn't cross, that much at least seems pretty well nailed down. Or....You know. As much as it can be at this stage of the game.

__________________________

I don't want to start a flame war or anything. But I just remembered to go see what (if anything) Joe Cannon decided to do about having rashly gone all in on the Mossad-did-it angle back when it was possible to premise that on Sam Bacile being (a) real; and (b) Israeli. And I was a little surprised to see that he hasn't walked it back an inch. I always thought he had higher standards than that. I mean, reportorially. The ideological stuff is his business. But, you know. He made a mistake.

It's nice to see that someone's playing defense for the Copts, however. Even if it might not be for the best of reasons.

[Ben D]

Ah ha....

Report: Benghazi Attack Also Targeted CIA Installation

The September 11 attack in Benghazi, Libya, also hit a covert CIA installation, U.S. officials say.

By Elad Benari First Publish: 10/23/2012, 12:12 AM

The September 11 attack in Benghazi, Libya, targeted more than just a State Department consulate. One of the buildings hit was a covert CIA installation, U.S. officials told Fox News on Monday.

The now-abandoned American consulate in Benghazi was set a little more than a mile away from the CIA base, the officials said. Up to this point, that separate base was described by administration officials only as a "safe house" or "annex" to the nearby consulate. In reality, CIA agents and other intelligence officials were operating out of Benghazi conducting delicate missions, including the search for over 20,000 deadly shoulder-fired missiles previously owned by Muammar Qaddafi's Libyan forces.

The work they conducted to seize those deadly weapons, known as MANPADS, was part of a broader and public effort by the State Department to secure them, according to Fox News. The major concern is those weapons could be used to bring down a commercial jet.

These officials added that the number of CIA operatives in Benghazi clearly outnumbered that of the diplomatic staff. It took two military cargo aircraft to lift everyone out of Benghazi when the fighting was over, they claimed.

Both the CIA outpost and the consulate were attacked on September 11. Two of the men killed, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, were hit by indirect fire while defending the intelligence post, not the consulate.

One witness told Fox News that Doherty and Woods were found on the roof of the intelligence base manning a single machine gun that was caked in blood, suggesting they continued firing after they were hit by a mortar round approximately seven hours after the attack began.

U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and information analyst Sean Smith were also killed in the attack hours earlier at the consulate.

Revelations concerning just how sensitive operations were in Benghazi began to trickle out during the House oversight committee hearing two weeks ago with witnesses Charlene Lamb, a State Department official who heads diplomatic security, and Ambassador Patrick Kennedy, undersecretary for management at State, Fox News reported.

As part of their testimony, the two presented a map of Benghazi that clearly labeled and located the so-called annex. Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, and committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., both called a point of order, complaining that the map included information they were specifically instructed not to talk about.

In the immediate aftermath of the attack, Obama administration officials said it appeared to be linked to protests in the Muslim world against a film shot by American-based activists and deemed insulting to the Islamic faith.

It has since emerged that the prime suspects in the attack are terrorists with links to Al-Qaeda.

State Department officials testified at the hearing last week that requests for additional security in Benghazi were turned down by their superiors.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took the blame for the fiasco over the Benghazi attack last week. "I take responsibility," she said, adding, "I'm in charge of the State Department -- 60,000 plus people all over the world, 275 posts.”

[Wombaticus Rex]

The story of that being outed is LULZ: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html

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 CIA’s cover.

The purpose of Wednesday’s hearing of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee was to examine security lapses that led to the killing in Benghazi last month of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three others. But in doing so, the lawmakers reminded us why “congressional intelligence” is an oxymoron....

[General Patton]

The story of that being outed is LULZ: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html

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 CIA’s cover.

The purpose of Wednesday’s hearing of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee was to examine security lapses that led to the killing in Benghazi last month of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three others. But in doing so, the lawmakers reminded us why “congressional intelligence” is an oxymoron....

Republican stupidity has been a bigger pain in the ass for the CIA over the last 4 or 5 years than all of Julian Assange's leaks combined.

[Ben D]

U.S. Secret Weapons Delivery Fell into Hands of Terrorists

By Annie Lubin First Publish: 12/6/2012, 7:34 PM

A secret arms shipment to Libyan rebels fell into the arms of known terrorist groups. U.S. now concerned that the same can happen in Syria.

Fears are being raised in Washington that a secret delivery of arms shipments to Libyan rebels, Okayed by the Obama administration, might have gotten into the hands of Islamic terrorists, and may very well be the weapons used by Al Qaeda linked terrorists to kill U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens.

The United States agreed last year to arm Libyan rebels from Qatar, but, as the New York Times reported, American officials grew concerned when intelligence evidence revealed only a few weeks after the deal was agreed to that the rebels were handing weapons over to known terrorist groups.

As of yet, there is no clear evidence linking the weapons provided to the Qataris during the uprising against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi to fatal attack in Benghazi, however new reports have surfaced which reveal that in the months before the September attack the Obama administration expressed extreme concern over the secret weapons deal and where the weapons ended up.

The situation in Libya plays directly into the U.S.’s concerns on how to act in regards to the violent civil war in Syria – fearing that if they choose to arm the Syrian opposition the weapons might easily find their way into the hands of terrorists.

Throughout its dealings with the various Arab uprisings that took place throughout the last year, the Obama administration has consistently tried to avoid U.S. military entanglement by choosing to support the popular opposition groups, often with arms and money.

“To do this right, you have to have on-the-ground intelligence and you have to have experience,” said Vali Nasr, a former State Department adviser. “If you rely on a country that doesn’t have those things, you are really flying blind. When you have an intermediary, you are going to lose control.”

The U.S. has not yet made public any plans for how to quell the violence in Syria. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is set to meet with her Russian counterpart and the UN peace envoy for Syria Thursday to discuss the situation.

[Pele'sDaughter]

http://news.msn.com/world/lawyer-suspec ... in-tunisia

The only suspect in custody over the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, has been conditionally released by Tunisian authorities due to lack of evidence, his lawyer said Tuesday.

The release of Ali Harzi, a Tunisian, represents a blow to the investigation of the Sept. 11 attack on the consulate in Libya that killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans. The investigation in Libya itself has been stalled due to the weak power of the central government in the face of the powerful militias, some of whom may have been involved in the attack.

Harzi's lawyer Anwar Oued-Ali said his client was freed Monday night but has to remain in the greater Tunis area in case the court needs him.

Harzi had previously been interrogated by FBI officials in the presence of a Tunisian judge in December. He was originally detained in Turkey and in October was extradited to Tunisia, where authorities had said he was "strongly suspected" of being involved in the attack.

His lawyer had always maintained there was no evidence linking him to the attack.

[Hunter]

The whole thing is a mess, from what I can gather, the CIA set up shop in Libya and started arming Libyan rebels with the purpose of taking down Quaddafi. A good percentage of these rebels are alqeada loyalists, so here we are arming our sworn enemy (once again) because at this time it serves our interests to do so.

So Quaddafi is killed, we then confiscate his weapons cache that includes thousands of surface to air missiles and begin to take back weapons and stop all support for the rebels we used to help bring him down in the first place, we then take all those weapons and ship them to SYRIA and arms the rebels there, who again, are majority alqeada loyalists, in an attempt to bring down Assad, leaving the Libyan rebels hanging out to dry just like we did in Afghanistan during the Russian invasion there when we armed them and once our objectives were met we double crossed them and ended our support and left them hanging to dry, which result in the blowback of 9-11. So after we start arming Syrian rebels and giving them all our support using Libya as ground zero for this new operation, and leaving the Libyan rebels hanging out to dry, they obviously are not happy and they in turn attack the CIA annex, which was set up by Clinton as a State Dept Consulte front to hide the CIA OP, they lay waste to it as blowback for us using the rebels and then turning our back on them once our objectives were met. Meanwhile the official story coming out of the White House is that the attack was random, unplanned and spontaneous and the result of an obscure youtube video about Islam that pissed the Muslims off, but the truth now coming out is that is not true and the CIA and Consulate saw it coming and asked for more security but was ignored, meaning the White House and State Dept new there was a threat boiling but did nothing to stop it or protect our people.


Its a big ****ing CIA mess, the same story as always, the US using people, even our own enemies, for our own interests and then turning our back on them when we dont need them anymore and suffering the resulting blowback from these bad short sighted foreign policy decisions and all the while covering it up to protect those at the top who knew about it and gave the ok for it all but claim ignorance when it all falls apart and people die.


****ing liars all of them.

[FourthBase]

Did not read thread except for Alchemy's post.
Did anyone mention the notion of a torture op, in addition to the arms-trafficking?
This is one of those stories, like Clinton-in-Arkansas and Norquist, among others...
Where the people to listen to are the right-wingers. Yeah, Scaife is a ghoul. Geller. Etc.
Who else will have an interest in exposing dirt, though? Not liberals, about this.
Pay attention to what the "opposition" says, whoever it is at any given time.

[Hunter]

Havent heard the torture angle, everything I posted is coming from MSM though so its not something I found on Alex Jones, this shit is real and its now all being exposed, 7 State Dept and CIA career employees have retained counsel in the last 24 hours and are reporting they have been threatened to keep their mouth shut after they announced they were going to become federally protected whistle blowers.


The torture stuff is likely real also, they had a CIA annex there and Clinton sent the Consul guy there to set the whole thing up as a State Dept cover for the CIA op which was set up to run arms to Libyan rebels and now Syrian rebels and I am sure they used it to torture Pro Quddafi supporters and things like that as well, in fact now that you mention it I had heard as much early on but that part of it hasnt come out in the MSM yet and likely never will, early on there were some reports in various places that the rebels, pissed off at how they were treated once we met our objectives using them as cannon fodder, stormed the annex not only to kill those who turned on them but also to set free Libyan prisoners that we were holding there and who were being tortured for various reasons, I do recall that.

What we do know for certain right now, at the very least, is that the State Dept was used to set up a American Consulate mission as a front for the CIA op, and that OP was in fact a gun running operation to arm rebels, a vast majority of whom are in fact AlQeada loyalists.


I agree, roight now FOX news et al, on the right, seem to be hitting pretty hard with the real facts and I am not just taking what they say at face value, all my research indicates this is exactly what went on there.

[Hunter]

Right here is the best article I have found on it, mind you even CBS is reporting this same exact story and all research is showing this is precisely how it went down, not a fan of American Free Press as a right wing rag but they are doing their homework on this:

By Victor Thorn

It has taken two months, but news involving what really happened in Benghazi, Libya at the United States consulate is beginning to leak out. As reporters Adam Entous, Siobhan Gorman and Margaret Coker of The Wall Street Journal admitted on November 1, “The U.S. effort in Benghazi was at its heart a CIA operation.”

On September 11, 2012, a heavily armed group staged a nighttime attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. For the next several hours, gun battles erupted in that building as well as in a neighboring location that had been used by the CIA as a “safe house.” When the dust settled on September 12, four Americans were dead, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens.

New reports now indicate that the Western press in Libya, including New York Times correspondents, knew all along that the assault was not “a spontaneous attack brought about by an anti-Islamic movie in the United States.” Instead, the attackers targeted a spy operation being run by the CIA tasked with moving weapons to rebel fighters around the Middle East.

It all started just after the Obama commencement of a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)-led invasion of Libya wherein national leader Muammar Qaddafi was murdered. With the war winding down, the CIA established its first intelligence annex in Libya in February 2011. With Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s State Department providing diplomatic cover to conceal the operation’s true nature, CIA contractors recruited anti-Qaddafi rebels and provided weaponry to them.

Strong evidence now exists that Stevens seized weapons in Libya and sent them to Syria via Turkey where rebel groups created by the CIA and the Mossad are battling President Bashar Assad’s army for control of the nation.

Michael Kelley of Business Insider, which is described as one of the fastest growing financial websites on the Internet, wrote on November 3: “A Libyan ship—which reportedly weighed 400 tons—docked in southern Turkey on September 6, and its cargo ended up in the hands of Syrian rebels. The man who organized that shipment, Tripoli Military Council head Abdelhakim Belhadj, worked directly with Stevens during the Libyan revolution. These weapons [were] presumably from Muammar Qaddafi’s stock of about 20K portable heat-seeking missiles, the bulk of which were SA-7 surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles.”

On November 9 AMERICAN FREE PRESS interviewed a source who requested to be used only as “background” for this story. AFP asked him if he felt that forces, who originally worked with the CIA and NATO to overthrow Qaddafi, attacked the CIA safe house because they were angered that their bounty—thousands of high-tech weapons—were now being taken from them and dispatched to another group of CIA mercenaries in Syria.

He responded: “The Libyans were pawns in their own revolution. NATO and the Obama administration wanted Qaddafi out, so they used the home team to do it. Soldiers that opposed Qaddafi received their funding from NATO and the CIA. Then, after these rebels did the dirty work and got rid of Qaddafi, the CIA went searching for his heat-seeking missiles.”

Once the CIA planted roots in Libya, AFP’s source picked up the story of what transpired.

“Some of the same forces that were set against Qaddafi were later used to provide security at the CIA’s safe house,” he said. “Although many of the details are still clouded, it’s certain that the CIA embassy was not attacked due to an anti-Islamic film, as the administration initially claimed.”

AFP inquired as to whether President Barack Obama would have been apprised and directly knowledgeable of the CIA’s weapons-running operation. “Yes,” he said.

To illustrate how extensively the CIA was involved in this mess, the source stated: “Of the 30 men stationed in Benghazi, only seven weren’t officially employed by the CIA. Once the mission was attacked, CIA contractors got most of their fellow Americans out. Yet, following their rescue mission, some of them were tracked down and killed.”

The success of the CIA operation moving guns out of Libya was what ultimately doomed the mission there. “For at least 30 days prior to the September 11 onslaught, Stevens’s emails prove that he felt an attack was imminent,” said AFP’s source. “But since the CIA had already moved a majority of weapons out of Libya on the September 6 boat dispatched to Turkey, there was no more need for the mission in Benghazi. Now that most everyone knows about this situation, the CIA’s cover was blown, which is something they never wanted.”

AFP inquired as to whether there was any possibility that Stevens had been deliberately set up. AFP’s contact replied, “At the very least, somebody was negligent about security at the embassy, and Stevens knew more about the Libyan gun-running operation than anyone.”

Now, conveniently, Stevens is dead and CIA Director David Petraeus resigned on November 9 “due to marital indiscretions.”

As of this writing, Petraeus will testify behind closed doors on Capitol Hill about his role in the Benghazi scandal.

[Hunter]

The success of the CIA operation moving guns out of Libya was what ultimately doomed the mission there. “For at least 30 days prior to the September 11 onslaught, Stevens’s emails prove that he felt an attack was imminent,” said AFP’s source. “But since the CIA had already moved a majority of weapons out of Libya on the September 6 boat dispatched to Turkey, there was no more need for the mission in Benghazi.

So according to this not ONLY did we double cross the rebels that we used to bring down the MQ regime, BUT WE ALSO turned our back on our own CIA guys and state dept guys and ignored their pleas for more security because we had already gotten the weapons out of there and in to Syria so there was no more need to worry about Benghazi, we just left them all there to deal with the blowback themselves, the ignorance of the White House and State Dept and refusal to protect our guys on the ground there resulted in their deaths.

This is no small fucking matter.


Why dont I just write this off as some right wing Witch Hunt against the Democrats? BECAUSE THIS IS EXACTLY HOW WE DO THINGS, this all makes PERFECT SENSE and is in accord with PRECISELY HOW WE HAVE OPERATED FOR DECADES.

[justdrew]

OR...

the revolution against Gaddafi was started by local forces "emboldened by all the Arab Spring talk". Some outside jihadist elements also entered the fray, it then became necessary to "pick the winner" from among the anti-Gaddafi forces, which seems to have worked out well, the current Libyan government seems semi-ok, and the roaming jihadists are on the way out. Did "we" use them? I don't think so, they were there and there wasn't much "we" could do about it during the revolution.

On Sept 11th, it had been almost three months since a 'terrorist' attack in the city. The CIA annex had adequate security, the consulate was un-staffed at the time, only 2 or 3 people were in it when it was attacked. It seems like a poor choice on poor Steven's part to not relocate to the CIA annex rather than stay in the empty building overnight.

As for beefing up security... the consulate was mostly empty, how many more troops would it take to "properly secure" it? 100 ? 1000? 10,000? Most of the more minor prior-attacks happened outside secure compounds, so presumably we would have needed to occupy the major routes in and around the city. How popular would that have been? Escalating the situation like that would not have helped, and would not have been popular with the somewhat friendly new government and population. Pack enough in there and it just makes it a target for a different kind of attack. Think Beirut 23OCT1983 all over again.

In the end, 125 - 150 enemy attackers maybe a few more by the time they started attacking the CIA annex. Just under 100 attackers were killed in the fighting. We lost two non-combatants to smoke inhalation and two to enemy fire. The jihadist attack was not popular with the locals and Libya is trying hard to return to a civil society.

No clear evidence exists of any US faction controlling the roving jihadists, though it's certainly possible. Clearly IF SO, that faction is not the current Administration. It MIGHT be the ones that tried to exploit the tragedy for political gain. That can't be ruled out. If there were some proof of that, it would no doubt be covered up, since if it came out, 40+% of the population would just deny it anyway, claim it was all fake, etc. After the arrests trials and execution/imprisonment of the traitors we'd be on our way to fully hot war in the US.

The situation may be FAR more unstable than we like to think.

We DO NOT know that the CIA annex's mission was to give guns to jihadis. All I've heard about it's mission is that they wanted to REMOVE weapons held by the former regime (like Qaddafi's stinger missiles). The opposite. The idea that the CIA had to arm the roving jihadi's is ludicrous. There is a global arms market you know? They have no apparent difficulty getting guns themselves.

I mean FFS, that "Victor Thorn" article suggests the terrorists attacked us because we were giving them guns. Oh, that makes sense. And we have eye witness testimony that the attackers did gather some locals to chant against the retarded movie. Almost as if they wanted to make sure that was reported and got mentioned. I see juhadi's working hand in glove with their fundamentalist brothers in the republican party. Again. Because THAT IS WHAT THEY'VE ALWAYS DONE.

There are videos on youtube showing Syrian rebels with SA-7 well before that shipped is supposed to have docked. Also the SA-7 is a nato reporting name, it's a soviet weapon, all over the black markets. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strela_2

Described by one expert as being "the premier Russian export line", the Strela and its variants have seen widespread use in nearly every regional conflict since 1968.

It's just another steaming pile of republican horse shit. I bet there's as much truth to their story about stevens shipping these weapons as there was to the Niger yellowcake stories. Both come from the same place.

Please read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack

[Hunter]

I have no dog in this fight, Drew, I very much consider myself a liberal leftist and I dont much care for the right but I am not ready to buy the idea that the administration and state dept have clean hands here because this is the same sort of thing we did in afghanistan, the fact that we arm our ememies and use them to meet our own objectives and interests and then pull all support for them once that is done, is really not a point of contention, we do it, have have done it. I would personally prefer nothing come of this and all things considered Hillary have a chance at the presidency in 16 not because I like her but because she is better than anything else there is to choose from, but I dont think she is clean here and I dont think she is going to come out of this smelling very well. I also see no reason not to believe that we are now arming the Syrian rebels and that we are using the same weapons we took from Lybia to do it, and that may all be fine and well but I do not support any of that sort of thing, we have no business being involved in any of it let alone providing weapons to those who are involved in it. Regardless of the who what when where and how, its a dirty filthy game and everyone involved on both sides are a bunch of liars and their lying has commonly resulted in the death of those who are on the ground serving them and taking their orders because they cannot be protected properly less the American public find out the truth of these matters and those at the top take a hit for it. They protect their own asses at the expense of everyone below them.


There is a clear pattern here, Afghanistan, Iran Contra, Benghazi, its all the same game and its played by everyone involved, this is not a right/left issue and there is no sides to take, they are all dirty and involved in it.


Any attempt, IMO, to try and defend any of these bastards, is just wrong, and there is no reason anyone with integrity would try and do it, they are all dirty, its a dirty game, and they all play it and are part of it.


As per your comment that none of them need to use the CIA to get weapons because there is a weapons market out there they can use, who do you think controls that market to begin with, where does the money come from, its all the same place and same people at the top.

[justdrew]

how could a small CIA annex with light staffing have "taken" the arms back?

but no argument from me that it was stupid move to arm the mujaheddin in Afghanistan and/or otherwise permit Saudi encouragement of ever more fundamentalist Islam, but those choices were all made by Republicans (sure Carter got the ball rolling, but he was steamrollered on that). All that blow-back is due to "Christian fundamentalist" republican politicians and agents who thought they could take control of "political Islam" from the Iranian revolution.

[FourthBase]

Back from nightly retirement to say this:
Justdrew, sorry, but you have zero credibility re: this.
Actually, regarding anything that might make Democrats look bad.
It's one thing to loathe Republicans more. Quite another to play defense for the Dems.
Let me ask you: Bill Clinton, was he an overseer of drug trafficking? Or, uh, not?
If you begin to explain that away then you'll be the first person I ever ignore.

Voting for the lesser of evils may be a necessity.
Not recognizing that one party's elite is an evil at all? Unacceptable.
You might as well be the ideological version of a hoaxer.