New ObamaGate Scandal; State Department Sold Stingers to Al Queda

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by GhostLancer

 

When the Captain of a naval vessels is in his quarters sleeping, and a junior officer who has the watch runs the vessel into another ship or land or what not, the Captain of the Ship is responsible, regardless.

This President seems to think that its all Bush's fault, regardless of the actions of his own staff / political appointees.

The situation is apples and oranges away from the dangerous negligence of a junior watch officer. Naval vessels are a small realm of their own and vastly different from running the United States. Obviously there are countless more levels of intricacy involved with the myriad, obfuscated aspects of the U.S. and it's multifaceted, compartmented and *clandestine* stratifications of government both visible and shadowed. There are so many things that the President IS NOT INFORMED OF because of NEED TO KNOW that a person might wonder if he is truly in charge. The President is not briefed on every little detail of all operations, especially those of the Cent Int Agency. To deny this is to embrace ignorance. Okay, some stinger missiles might have been allegedly sold to some people who shouldn't have them. Did the President order this? Probably not. Okay, some dozens of thousands of documents were leaked to the public via the Wikileaks incident. Did the President order this? No. It was some whistleblower who did it. I am surprised that President Obama was not blamed for the Wikileaks incident because that falls into the same broken train of thought presented in this thread. If people are going to try to pin blame on the President, then at least come up with more solid arguments.

I agree, whenever there is a problem in this admin it is never obamas fault, it is always somebody else. Or they try an insulate him in one way or another. they knew about the IRS scandal, the last head of the IRS knew about it after the IG completed it report on the matter 6 months before an election, and they kept it quiet, as for the stinger missle problem that might be coming out in future hearings, If it was the state department it was Hillary clinton that has the problem, and since she is a member of obamas cabinet that defacto obama has a problem, wether he knew or not, he is responsable for the actions of his staff.

Originally posted by Czulkang
I agree, whenever there is a problem in this admin it is never obamas fault, it is always somebody else. Or they try an insulate him in one way or another. they knew about the IRS scandal, the last head of the IRS knew about it after the IG completed it report on the matter 6 months before an election, and they kept it quiet, as for the stinger missle problem that might be coming out in future hearings, If it was the state department it was Hillary clinton that has the problem, and since she is a member of obamas cabinet that defacto obama has a problem, wether he knew or not, he is responsable for the actions of his staff.

To claim Democrat/progressive is taking the view that none of these issues are Obama's fault is just disingenuous hyperbole. But at least someone in the Obama administration is being held accountable. During the Bush II regime it was at best "mistakes were made" or "nobody thought X was possible." The Bush II regime was the Denial regime.

And yeah, no doubt people will reply to the effect "stop bringing up old stuff from the Bush years." And my reply will be, so what's up with the massive double standard you Obama-hating, apologizing-for-Bush conservatives and Republicans have? You want to hold a black, Democratic president to a certain standard, then you need to hold white, Republican presidents to the same standard.

And let me also remind you conservatives that Ronald Reagan got away with various major policy failures and crimes, including the killing of hundreds of Marines in Beirut because of poor tactics there, illegally running coc aine for money for the Contras and selling weapons to Iran, an enemy of the US, to also fund the Contras and to negotiate for the release of hostages? He had fall guys take the blame for some of these things, but The Gipper was never held responsible by most people. But again, Reagan was neither a Democrat or black.

Originally posted by DarthFazer
Oh imagine that a Fast and Furious 2 , It's like Iran Contra all over again, after all Obama has since adopted every failed republican policy and managed to out do Bush in tyranny. So why stop there, maybe he will sell some tactical Nukes to Kim Jong-un so he can have Iran removed from the map with that logic. If he has not all ready

edit on 22-5-2013 by DarthFazer because: (no reason given)

there is nothing funny about selling nukes to NK.
there are already suitcase nukes planted in several
locations around USA and other countries just waiting
on soneone like NK to be set up for the blame.

What was behind NK rattling their sabre a couple of months ago?
NK was paid to do that, so that when one of these suitcase
nukes was detonated, he could be blamed, someone changed their mind.

Originally posted by Czulkang

Im new to the site, and this is my thinking on this subject.

We were there to buy back stingers, for whatever reason the deal goes wrong or it was an intended ambush from the start. It my my thinking that we did not try to rescue these men from an ongoing attack becasue we knew that they had stingers and might have had men stationed outside the airport in bhengazi to shoot down any reinforcements sent from tripoli to help and also might have some stingers around the attack area to try and shoot down any helichopters or warplanes sent to help them out. and this would have made the situation far worse from obama 2 months before and election not only haveing to explain why theses men were killed, but also how terrorists got there hands on surface to air anti-aircraft missiles, Hence the stand down order given to General Carter Ham (Commanding General USAFRICOM) and the specs ops operations in tripoli.

What do you all think of my theory?

I can't stand Obama, but I think you have a very good theory.

Unfortunately, it doesn't explain why security was terribly lacking on the highest terrorist risk day of the year.

U.S. efforts consisted of three phases.

Phase I entailed an effort to rapidly survey, secure and disable loose MANPADS across the country.

“To accomplish this, we immediately deployed our Quick Reaction Force, which are teams made up of civilian technical specialists,” he said.

Phase 2 efforts were to help aid the Libyan government to integrate militias and veterans of the fighting, including consolidating weapons into secure facilities and assisting in the destruction of items that the Libyans deemed in excess of their security requirements.

Such actions were likely not supported by the jihadist rebels.

The third phase would have seen the U.S. helping to ensure the Libyan met modern standards, including updating storage facilities, improving security and implementing safety management practices.

The U.S. efforts clearly failed.

Last month, the United Nations released a report revealing that weapons from Libya to extremists were proliferating at an “alarming rate,” fueling conflicts in Mali, Syria, Gaza and elsewhere

reply to post by Surfrat


that is just great.
some of these weapons
must be those that were in
lybia right?

Originally posted by GhostLancer
There are so many things that the President IS NOT INFORMED OF because of NEED TO KNOW that a person might wonder if he is truly in charge. The President is not briefed on every little detail of all operations, especially those of the Cent Int Agency.

Yet the head of the respective agencies involved in the scandal are still employed.

Why has Obama not releived them of command?

There are so many things that the President IS NOT INFORMED OF because of NEED TO KNOW that a person might wonder if he is truly in charge. The President is not briefed on every little detail of all operations, especially those of the Cent Int Agency. To deny this is to embrace ignorance.

And the posters who frequently include this little
seven word sentence in their post are usually
ignoring a lot of reality themselves. And I quote
"To deny this is to embrace ignorance."

Originally posted by Czulkang
Im new to the site, and this is my thinking on this subject.

We were there to buy back stingers, for whatever reason the deal goes wrong or it was an intended ambush from the start. It my my thinking that we did not try to rescue these men from an ongoing attack becasue we knew that they had stingers and might have had men stationed outside the airport in bhengazi to shoot down any reinforcements sent from tripoli to help and also might have some stingers around the attack area to try and shoot down any helichopters or warplanes sent to help them out. and this would have made the situation far worse from obama 2 months before and election not only haveing to explain why theses men were killed, but also how terrorists got there hands on surface to air anti-aircraft missiles, Hence the stand down order given to General Carter Ham (Commanding General USAFRICOM) and the specs ops operations in tripoli.

What do you all think of my theory?

Any clandestine operation of this type would require more extensive manpower than what was present at the facility in Benghazi. In addition, there is no plausible reason that such an operation would take place on the grounds of an American consulate, where if it did go wrong, "plausible deniability" would be a forlorn dream for any parties involved. Furthermore, Glen Doherty was already known to be pursuing missing MANPADs in the region, and the proliferation of this technology was well documented for years before the incident. No one would question how the terrorists in this incident would have acquired them.

reply to post by Jalbrook


How about republicans and democrats are all the same.

How about our US gov't is deliberately destroying our country - both economically, and militarily. - ecologically, and through GM foods and big pharma drugs.

How about we get rid of all of them?

How about we get out of the middle east all together?

How about we stop arming the CIA drug cartels and start arming our citizens?

How about we close our borders?

How about we get rid of all the treasonous gov't officials out there?

All of this isn't new - it's been going on for decades. We need to disband the UN, and the new world gov't bastards, get rid of the FED and the world bank cartels - and Monsanto too.

None of this is a "new" problem - it's been going on for decades, to the detriment of all people of the world.

reply to post by Happy1


I am pretty much in agreement with the
majority of your ideas and thoughts.

Fox News are the real conspiracy theorists, Their sole mission is to bring down the Obama Administration by saying and doing whatever it takes. Has there been some apparent "scandals". Sure probably, it happens in every administration. But when people start talking about Benghazi being a coverup for something bigger, I cant logically believe that. To me everything said seems like a bad day, made worse by poor communication. That day was handled unprofessionally but not criminally. Fox News takes everything said and twists it around to fit their own agenda.

reply to post by Gohome1122


I don't know about Fox working overtime to bring Obama down. They make their bread on the right commentators in the evenings, but the actual news side in morning/mid afternoon is generally more heavy on Obama coverage than others. Especially on seemingly inane speeches given almost everywhere. It's part of what turned me off fox a few years ago. On Satellite radio, their choice of free content filler was just maddening...and easy to see in that context of flipping between the 5 major channels, the others didn't tend to do that. So Fox seems a mixed bag between bashing Obama like a sport and covering him like a star.

Benghazi seems to be a cover-up of something bigger for two reasons. First, the murder of Chris Stevens represented the second direct attack against the compound across a period of months. Not the first. Despite the first attack, marine protection was summarily denied with a local militia being hired as the gate and perimeter security. That stinks worse than a bad movie. Some of those same security were texted as being among the attackers by the staffer who died around the same time Stevens did.

Second, support was told to stand down. 30 people were in the compound, not just Stevens as one of two who actually died. Had support note broken ranks and made the run almost 2 kilometers to get most of those 30 people out, we'd have had a Blackhawk Down type moment of disbelief and national shock at a totally unexpected body count. The attackers even shifted the attack to the CIA station after the bulk of staff moved over there from the State compound. So it was STILL their intention to kill our people and in numbers...whatever the ultimate goal was.

....that goal from the terrorists side of this thing, is what needs answered. What was THAT important and THAT worthwhile? It's a major thing that can't "just be let go..." Democrat or not.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

It is not uncommon for embassies to be attacked multiple times, or even for attacks to occur within relatively short time frames. The 2008 Yemeni Embassy Attack that killed 19 occurred in September of 2008, but in March of that year another attack that killed no Americans occurred. There was yet another attack at the same embassy a few months later in January of 2009.

While it is unfortunate that additional US security forces weren't present, it is still not suspicious, given the downsizing that had been--and is still--going on within the Department of Defense and the government in general. Hiring local militias would make a great deal of sense as they would strain the budget less than paying for full time security from military personnel. I haven't seen any information on members of the contracted security forces having been with the militants, though I have heard that Sean Smith saw a man in a Libyan police uniform taking images of the compound, and Smith posted this information on the Internet noting his suspicion of the man. Is that what you're referring to?

According to PolitiFact, the only stand down order received was after evacuation had begun from the second facility, and after all members of the first had been moved to this facility. As for the purpose of the attacks, the fact that they carried on past the destruction of the first facility suggests that there was no higher goal than to incite terror and panic in American citizens, both stationed elsewhere abroad and in the homeland of USA; if the goal had been to capture specific intelligence or materials from the first location, then there would be no reason to pursue fleeing members to the second facility. Similarly, if the original goal was to acquire something from the second facility, there would be no reason to start by assaulting the first.

reply to post by Happy1

I was not suggesting that we don't worry about any issue that has persisted for years, but merely pointing out that it would not be surprising to discover that MANPADs were being used by the assailants to the embassy, because they have been widely available to terrorists for at least a decade, so there is no incentive for a cover up by the Obama Administration.

reply to post by dieseldyk


Like you say.. If A,Q. really attacked us? If 9/11 was just a well planned & well executed terrorist attack, we can say they are not 10% of what they were when it happened. Time to move on, & not use this Title to take away Americans freedoms & privacy. Unless that is benefiting our government for other reasons, so the Fear needs to go on. Either way, the last 14 years have been one disaster after the other. I never thought I would ever feel totally abused, or have absolutely no faith in my own government. I almost feel like their not even on our side anymore. Instead of looking to them for hope, or answers, I just look away now. The lies & psychological warfare they use on us is just to much.

Originally posted by slugger9787

There are so many things that the President IS NOT INFORMED OF because of NEED TO KNOW that a person might wonder if he is truly in charge. The President is not briefed on every little detail of all operations, especially those of the Cent Int Agency. To deny this is to embrace ignorance.

And the posters who frequently include this little
seven word sentence in their post are usually
ignoring a lot of reality themselves. And I quote
"To deny this is to embrace ignorance."

Look, CEOs of *****ANY***** large corporation do not know the goings-on of the mail room. Okay, a letter or two gets delivered to the wrong address. Is the CEO to blame? Probably not. Should he fire the mailroom director? Probably not. In the machinations of any large corporate structure (including the US Gov), things are going to go wrong. --We're only human, and inherently anything we do is not going to be perfect-- So, unless you're gunning for the guy in charge, the CEO, there is no reason to hold him/her accountable for minor mistakes made in the proverbial mail room.