CIA operators were denied request for help during Benghazi attack, sources say

reply to post by atlguy

Why can't the POTUS give us what he does know then, and straighten this thing out a bit?

He didn't have a problem blaming it on a video, a story that simply was not true...and he knew that.

Perhaps noone remembers that the movie that was the basis for all this was done by the US government and most likely they had moles within the rebel groups that did the attack. Is it any wonder they told their people to stand down so their agenda could proceed without hindrance.

I bet FLOTUS isn't very happy about this either. I can only imagine some of their conversations. What does he say to his children? How is this explained?

reply to post by LightWaveWarrior


I didn't know that. The guy that they arrested for the movie?

USA Today article, rehashing most of what we have covered here, also has CIA statement, and a video of the President being questioned on this news at a local Colorado appearance..

Obama rebuffs Benghazi questions

President Obama has declined to answer questions about a report that Americans under attack in Libya on Sept. 11 were denied help, saying the entire incident is still under investigation.

reply to post by JacKatMtn

I saw this, and was amazed at how stupid he thinks we are. He can't be a man and own up to it. What kind of example is he providing for the rest of the country/children in paticular.

Originally posted by LightWaveWarrior
Perhaps noone remembers that the movie that was the basis for all this was done by the US government and most likely they had moles within the rebel groups that did the attack. Is it any wonder they told their people to stand down so their agenda could proceed without hindrance.

Anyone with a cursory knowledge of recent history understands that there is a clear and proven pattern to attacks and protests in response to media depictions of the Prophet Muhammad that is considered offensive to those of the Islam faith:
1) Media is published;

2) A well-coordinated and far-reaching campaign using various mediums (television, the internet, newspapers, magazines) is launched by Islamic fundamentalists to cause all believers in Islam to be outraged and offended (it should be noted these campaigns against media for their depictions of the Prophet Muhammad last for months);

3) When outrage begins to peak well-coordinated protests, threats and/or attacks are conducted against those responsible for media deemed to be an offensive depiction of the Prophet Muhammad (Historically the attacks, protests and threats have focused on the media outlet, parent corporation or author/artist; it is rare the nation of origin is the focus of the attack)

4) Some sort of victory is "claimed" by the Islamic fundamentalist groups who launched the campaigns.

When we examine the facts about the video blamed for the attacks on the Benghazi consulate it is crystal clear that this pattern had not been followed and outrage had not spread throughout the regions with a high Islamic population.

In order to "sell" the lie that the video was responsible for the attack on the Benghazi consulate the Executive branch needed to make the video go viral at an unprecedented pace and keep retelling the lie about the video at every opportunity to bring about protests against the video throughout the region in order to "sell" their blame it on the video lie to the public and attempt to eliminate further questions about the true reasons for attacks.

Questions raised by a Former Reagan era Asst Sec State in response to the President's answers given to the reporter in Colorado.

It has always bothered me that the first thing the "attackers" did was torch the joint. Follow up with an open crime scene for over a week and it stinks. Like the delay was to make sure it had a chance to burn and make sure any evidence left was looted.

reply to post by JacKatMtn

In response, CIA spokesperson Jennifer Youngblood said, “We can say with confidence that the Agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi. Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. In fact, it is important to remember how many lives were saved by courageous Americans who put their own safety at risk that night-and that some of those selfless Americans gave their lives in the effort to rescue their comrades.”

Post

reply to post by NickDC202

In order to "sell" the lie that the video was responsible for the attack on the Benghazi consulate the Executive branch needed to make the video go viral at an unprecedented pace and keep retelling the lie about the video at every opportunity to bring about protests against the video throughout the region in order to "sell" their blame it on the video lie to the public and attempt to eliminate further questions about the true reasons for attacks.

Sounds like there is a possibility that the U.S. Embassy attack in Cairo on the same day might have been arranged between Obama and the Muslim Brotherhood to get the movie protest established and set to go viral. The Cairo embassy was warned of an attack and issued the apology statement that Obama claims did not originate from him. The Cairo Embassy attack then laid the foundation for all following riots including Benghazi. The President tried like a screamin' demon to make the Libya movie protest story stick. Against all odds he had his staff push it. You have to wonder why he was pushing this so hard. I am beginning to think the Stevens kidnapping by the MB and the exchange deal for the blind cleric behind 9/11/2001 was his foiled plan.

reply to post by sad_eyed_lady


In case this article has yet to be added to the thread:


WHY IS THIS OVERLOOKED?: September 14, CIA Chief Petraeus Tells Congress Benghazi Attack Started As Movie Protest

Just four days before Susan Rice’s tv appearances. Why was Petraeus selling the Benghazi movie protest story 3 days after the attack? Why would he still believe that? And if he didn’t, why was he selling it? These are the two biggest questions of the hour on the entire Benghazi matter.

Source

reply to post by Americanist


What department in the Obama Administration that was speaking to the matter was not selling the lie about the video?

That tells you something, doesn't it?

Originally posted by sad_eyed_lady
reply to post by NickDC202

 

In order to "sell" the lie that the video was responsible for the attack on the Benghazi consulate the Executive branch needed to make the video go viral at an unprecedented pace and keep retelling the lie about the video at every opportunity to bring about protests against the video throughout the region in order to "sell" their blame it on the video lie to the public and attempt to eliminate further questions about the true reasons for attacks.

Sounds like there is a possibility that the U.S. Embassy attack in Cairo on the same day might have been arranged between Obama and the Muslim Brotherhood to get the movie protest established and set to go viral. The Cairo embassy was warned of an attack and issued the apology statement that Obama claims did not originate from him. The Cairo Embassy attack then laid the foundation for all following riots including Benghazi. The President tried like a screamin' demon to make the Libya movie protest story stick. Against all odds he had his staff push it. You have to wonder why he was pushing this so hard. I am beginning to think the Stevens kidnapping by the MB and the exchange deal for the blind cleric behind 9/11/2001 was his foiled plan.

I would agree that Washington DC is working with the Muslim Brotherhood. Since the MB took over Egypt the US still sends billions of dollars to them. But lets not forget who Washington also works well with, Al Qaeda, and guess who is in Libya right now and arrived in the guise of Freedom Fighters.

Show meeeee Al Qaeda!

Libya is wrought with terrorists and the MB is taking over their Gov't as we speak. The protests in Egypt that fateful day were never about the anti Muslim movie and Washington knew it and so did our MSM. They all knew the Egypt protests were about the very Blind Cleric you bring up.

Was the ambassador supposed to kidnapped in order to trade for the blind cleric and was the US Gov't in on it? I would say yes so the new question is why did they kill the ambassador instead? Maybe the US Gov't made a change of plans.

Originally posted by sad_eyed_lady
reply to post by NickDC202

 

In order to "sell" the lie that the video was responsible for the attack on the Benghazi consulate the Executive branch needed to make the video go viral at an unprecedented pace and keep retelling the lie about the video at every opportunity to bring about protests against the video throughout the region in order to "sell" their blame it on the video lie to the public and attempt to eliminate further questions about the true reasons for attacks.

Sounds like there is a possibility that the U.S. Embassy attack in Cairo on the same day might have been arranged between Obama and the Muslim Brotherhood to get the movie protest established and set to go viral. The Cairo embassy was warned of an attack and issued the apology statement that Obama claims did not originate from him. The Cairo Embassy attack then laid the foundation for all following riots including Benghazi. The President tried like a screamin' demon to make the Libya movie protest story stick. Against all odds he had his staff push it. You have to wonder why he was pushing this so hard. I am beginning to think the Stevens kidnapping by the MB and the exchange deal for the blind cleric behind 9/11/2001 was his foiled plan.

The trailer of the video first aired three days before the attack on a little-watched "news" program in Egypt (kind of their version of Alex Jones). It should be noted that this program is popular in small Egyptian Islamic fundamentalists circles but that is not a big potential audience at all. When the video was first mentioned right after the attack I did extensive searching and found that after the Sunday night show which featured the video, it generated little or no buzz in mainstream Egyptian news or even known radical Islamic sites. Aside from that television program three days before the attack, one of the few mentions of the video was on the website of the US Embassy in Cairo.

Perplexing; right?

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by sad_eyed_lady

 

In case this article has yet to be added to the thread:


WHY IS THIS OVERLOOKED?: September 14, CIA Chief Petraeus Tells Congress Benghazi Attack Started As Movie Protest

Just four days before Susan Rice’s tv appearances. Why was Petraeus selling the Benghazi movie protest story 3 days after the attack? Why would he still believe that? And if he didn’t, why was he selling it? These are the two biggest questions of the hour on the entire Benghazi matter.

Source

More proof they're ALL in on it. Right now they are playing the blame game. It's Obama's fault! No it's the intelligence communities fault! No it's the GOP's fault! Blah blah blah, it's all of their fault and they all should be dealt with accordingly but what do you wanna bet no one will be found guilty. No one will be jailed, fired, suspended, or even written up. Just like 9/11/01.... History repeating itself and no one seems to notice, no one seems to care.

Are you folks listening to yourselves?
This conspiracy is self-defeating, and it sounds entirely pulled from someone's posterior.

FIRST:
The whole motivation for the President to ALLOW an attack or create one, lacks any PAYOFF for the White House. This isn't the PNAC group with allies in Oil and Israel who directly benefitted from 9/11 with their plans to invade Iraq and control Afghanistan (for a gas pipeline to India and an Opium trade as bonus). THAT right there, is a motivation, and you've got prior planning and a history.

With Obama, you've got a hundred and one phantom conspiracies, based on nothing. If anyone brings this up, they are an "Obama apologist." Way to win friends. But the more flimsy the argument, the more passionate the personal attack.

SECOND:
If the CIA "requested" support for Benghazi attacks, then that means they sat on their hands while a small team took out an embassy. If they need backup when they've got prior knowledge -- they are useless as an organization for data collection or intervention. Which I've always suspected anyway. But when the State Department wanted to pull the "underwear bomber" off his flight, the CIA stated he was part of an ongoing investigation. Then they were the first to disinform the press about no passport. History seems to suggest that the CIA has a freer hand --- so where were they if they had all this PRIOR KNOWLEDGE of an attack? I claim total BW on that.

THIRD:

"Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that three urgent requests from the CIA annex for military back-up "

An outfit that has actual Republican candidates on its payroll to speak, and routinely innuendoes complete nonsense with "Is the President behind the recent spike in oil prices?" shows it's hand on a daily basis as a partisan propaganda op. CNN and NPR also put out nonsense -- but it's corporate in nature, it doesn't target a "side" to win.

"Sources say" on Fox News would mean something, if it ever meant something. Nobody outside of the Tea Party or NeoCons has any credibility for Fox News. So you guys can acquire all the outrage you want, but the last thing you were upset about was based on lies and deception and this is just more cards on a house of cards. You routinely have to ignore the absolute BS that Fox puts out, and then cherry pick "but this MUST be true." They can't lie EVERY TIME, can they? No, just enough to fan the flames.

Originally posted by Swills

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by sad_eyed_lady

 

In case this article has yet to be added to the thread:


WHY IS THIS OVERLOOKED?: September 14, CIA Chief Petraeus Tells Congress Benghazi Attack Started As Movie Protest

Just four days before Susan Rice’s tv appearances. Why was Petraeus selling the Benghazi movie protest story 3 days after the attack? Why would he still believe that? And if he didn’t, why was he selling it? These are the two biggest questions of the hour on the entire Benghazi matter.

Source

More proof they're ALL in on it. Right now they are playing the blame game. It's Obama's fault! No it's the intelligence communities fault! No it's the GOP's fault! Blah blah blah, it's all of their fault and they all should be dealt with accordingly but what do you wanna bet no one will be found guilty. No one will be jailed, fired, suspended, or even written up. Just like 9/11/01.... History repeating itself and no one seems to notice, no one seems to care.

You got that right, but let's put to rest the main issue beyond the tragic loss of life here...

The CIA has full resources to pull off anything as well as being the most powerful of the aforementioned.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by Americanist

 

What department in the Obama Administration that was speaking to the matter was not selling the lie about the video?

That tells you something, doesn't it?

Those are spirited questions even though the CIA is hardly tethered to an Administration. If that's what people believe, they're party to a lot of loose strings.

reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

Again, the POTUS had no problem with his people answering questions when they were telling lies.
Now that we are aware that they were lying, further questions can not be answered.....now they need to investigate. I'm not talking about the latest from Fox News, I am talking about the lies that they spread pinning the attack to a protest that didn't happen and a video that was not involved.