Wow, Cole, I won't lie. I did expect more from you in response to all this.
First, the video. You really believe it was " VERY HIGHLY PRODUCED BOTH IN QUALITY AND LOGISTICS ". Have you even watched this video? Now even the beloved Obama administration let this story go of blaming the video, yet, you are still touting it? That bewilders me and extremely laughable. I work in production, and this video is below amateur.
Second, you mentioned the drones giving us "photos" and pretty much who cares? Wrong on this fact, too. Drones have VIDEO capability now, so it is believed that Obama, his administration, State Department, intelligence agencies, whomever had access to video. Regardless, either moving or still photos are valuable intel. Remember the situation room photo of the Bin Laden raid? Yeah, they use stuff like that.
Third, don't misquote me. It shows your lack of ability to have a real conversation. You "quote" me as saying " sling-shots " " throwing rocks " which I did not. You did have my word in there, however, archaic. "Archaic" is a by dictionary synonym of obsolete. Are you really going to argue they weren't using obsolete / archaic weapons compared to what we would throw at them?
Fourth, you want to continue to bring up, yet I haven't, the 2 men relieved of their command. Please let me know where I brought them up, and said this was part of the cover-up. Another misquote that's getting quite tiring. Aren't you able to have a conversation without misquoting me? I'm not being sarcastic, I am asking for courtesy.
Oh, and before you jump all over me, in regards to who we had in the area.
Quite simply, I am not an intelligence officer, nor do I claim to know where the assets were. However, not only do I not know, the world doesn't. Locations of assets that could have helped are being withheld. Of course, we are skating on classified information, but maybe there is something they could release as proof. We are now approaching 2 months later.
Let's assume for a moment you are right, and no one was in the area to help. Ummm, that's a problem, don't you think? We SHOULD have had someone or something in the reachable area.
What I also think you failed to mention, is the CIA's OFFICIAL response. They had intelligence as early as 3 hours BEFORE the attack began. There are countless sources for this: https://www.google.com/search?q=CIA+kne ... azi+attack
Are you, or Duff, or anyone else for that matter, honestly going to tell me, that with our assets placed worldwide, with a 3 hour advance notice, and the attacking literally taking HOURS striking TWO locations, we couldn't have gotten there?? Where is the logic in that?
August 27, 2012
"En-Lugal" wrote: Aren't we supposed to be able to get boots on the ground, anywhere in the world, in two hours? I could've sworn I've heard this from the many military ads on television.
I don't know about an actual number to this, but with today's technology, and a 3 hour ADVANCE notice that the CIA has admitted to, why wasn't there something in play? Sorry, I don't by the skeptics on this story who say there wasn't a MASSIVE failure here.
I'll say it a thousand times... this is a cover-up to what was really going on in and after the Benghazi attack. But how far does it go? How much did Obama know and when?
April 9, 2009
No matter what the cost, Obama was not going to put one boot on the ground in this Libya operation. In doing so he got our embassy people killed. This was Obama catering to his liberal base, knowing they would tolerate using ships and airplanes, but would not tolerate another ground war. Sending just one person in would be impossible, and they knew if anyone got sent in, it would have to be in force. Not 1 or 5 men, not 12 or one squad, but a force with serious firepower with them, along with serious air support.
This is Obama with his liberal politics risking the lives of our people in dangerous sensitive locations, taking the option to appease his liberal supporters and fundraisers. The liberal base would not tolerate him putting a single person on the ground, so he risked these lives, being fully aware of the danger they were in. Hillary, is stalling and buying time to get past the election. The full scale investigation as to what happened will never make it before any election.
If you haven't seen this yet, it is well worth the watch:
April 9, 2009
Nobody misquoted you John....You're being petty in that regard. Is it save to use that word? Petty.
I made a reference to the word you used about the typical terrorists and the weapons most people think they are reduced to using....Sling-shots and rocks or WTF ever was an analogy, surely you're able to understand this without saying I'm putting words in your mouth or misquoting you.
Regardless this has spiraled into a pissing contest, one I'm not up for for obvious reason, I've better things to occupy my time. My deal is your initial post of this being a Presidential or " ADMINISTRATIVE " cover-up....when it's beyond clear that it was anything but.
The closest you'll get to any cover-up is that it's highly possible that the CIA was being protected for some reason or another...and as you say " you're not and intelligence " did you say officer? So how on earth would you ever come to the conclusion that this was a cover up?
As for the two dismissed/relieved Officers---EVERYONE on the right is claiming that they were relieved directly as a result of " THIS COVER-UP " That is absolutely false and proven by too many to count reports.. I'll not waste time explaining their respective locations at the time of the event, it's a no brainer.
It's funny how all of this came to light after the clowns in congress exposed the CIA on live TV during a Q & A.....I'm talking specifically about the CIA..and the compound they had a few meters away from the " Out Post " or whatever the finally decided to name it...You see...this is deep into the abyss of covert/CIA....Shit...and this Ambassador was " MORE OR LIKELY " also knee deep in it..........THAT may in fact very well be your smoking gun.....I say this because of who he was meeting with just prior to the attack going down.. The Turks...anyway.
The folks over at The VT...Had all of this days/weeks before anyone within the MSM had a clue...they reported it, posted it, wrote about it, talked about it...all proven to pan out in the end. The only thing they've yet to divulge............is WHAT WAS ACTUALLY GOING ON that involved the CIA.....Yes you can bet your arse that there is a specific reason for this.
My ire is directed at those too slow to grasp this as a fact, so they spun it as political fodder, " or worse as some have claimed..." SET IT ALL UP " Don't be naive and think for a second that that isn't possible within this Government..... Outing CIA op's is a death sentence or at a minimum a stretch in prison....I'm sure you're up to speed on the recent conviction of a CIA op for outing another.
Forgive me but when I say film I mean to say trailer....the trailer was used to incite those who tore up some locations within that respective region...it was very highly produced in both scope and distribution---next gen stuff...You've probably not seen the one of which I am referring to...only the shoddy POS said to be spun by the patsy ex-con in Hollywood....lol..
Anyway..Like I said I love you guys, appreciate the opportunity you afford, yet will not run from the truth. Sorry if that rubs some the wrong way.
Here: have a look:
[Image Can Not Be Found]
The hearing where they were exposed: Which brought about all the time line articles.
[Image Can Not Be Found]
Credit....have a look -----crisp satt photos...commercial satt pics..only if you look close you can see the Google brand.. 😉
http://cryptome.org/2012-info/cia-bengh ... nghazi.htm
Actually, yes, you did misquote me. How? You said:
Now as John said/claimed...these rioters/terrorists are supposed to be using " sling-shots " " throwing rocks "
Notice the part that said, "John said" and the part in quotation marks? Sling-shots and throwing rocks? Yes, that's called a misquote when you use quotation marks. Semantics, but misquote none-the-less.
You then go on to claim "everyone on the right" is talking about the two intelligence officers relieved of duty. I said it before, and since you obviously don't read my posts, I'll say it again. I never talked about those two intelligence officers. So honestly, stop wasting our time by trying to fight that point. SOME people are saying that, NOT me. And by the way, the dismissal of that allegation does NOT change the fact that yes, this was a cover-up.
Now, you want to continue to praise the people over at Veteran's Today, and of course the one you quote so often, Duff. Ironically, I am writing a television show right now, that airs weekly on national television, and although I can not go into detail of the episodes that have not aired, I was given an interesting story to write about in the show. What was it? It was a ridiculously un-sourced story about, get this, an alien invasion off the coast of California in September of this year. That U.S. Naval Forces teamed up with the Chinese Navy to fight an "aggressive alien threat". The evidence? None, a supposed leaked (but never said to be) government memo (presumably from China, also never confirmed or even sourced) saying that aliens were in fact invading, and U.S. forces were fighting them off with the help of the Chinese Navy.
Guess who wrote the article, Cole? You guessed it, Gordon Duff, and sourced to Veteran's Today. My point? I am all for a good UFO/Alien story, but when it is this off the wall, and he is writing it as absolute truth, I think it's safe to say his sources and facts are wildly misguided and false. So forgive me if I don't care to believe what Duff writes about Benghazi. He's lost all credibility in my mind.
So, that said, do you have any credible sources that you ever use? Maybe you should try TheOnion.com... that might give you some relevant debating material.
Cole, I'm actually pretty let down that in regards to Benghazi, you dismiss all evidence of an actual cover-up (the question is to what level it goes to) and take Duff's word as gospel. I don't mean this to come off as rude as it probably will, but honestly that makes me less surprised on why Obama was re-elected.
August 27, 2012
Petraeus agrees to testify on Libya before congressional committees
Former CIA Director David Petraeus has agreed to testify about the Libya terror attack before the House and Senate intelligence committees, Fox News has learned.
Petraeus had originally been scheduled to testify this Thursday on the burgeoning controversy over the deadly Sept. 11 attack. That appearance was scuttled, though, after the director abruptly resigned over an extramarital affair.
The resignation has since expanded into a sprawling scandal that now includes allegations that Gen. John Allen, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, exchanged "inappropriate" and sexually charged emails with Jill Kelley, a Florida socialite linked to the Petraeus case. The rapid developments in the case have all but obscured what until last week was an intense debate on Capitol Hill and beyond over the Benghazi terror attack.
After Petraeus' resignation, lawmakers complained that the scandal was no reason they shouldn't hear from the man at the helm of the CIA when CIA operatives came under attack alongside State Department employees in Benghazi last month.
The logistics of Petraeus' appearance are still being worked out. But a source close to Petraeus said the former four-star general has contacted the CIA, as well as committees in both the House and Senate, to offer his testimony as the former CIA director.
Fox News has learned he is expected to speak off-site to the Senate Intelligence Committee on Friday about his Libya report.
The House side is still being worked out.
Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the Sept. 11 attack, which the administration initially blamed on a "spontaneous" mob reacting to protests over an anti-Islam film. Officials later labeled the attack terrorism.
While Petraeus prepares to give his side, lawmakers have begun to openly question when Petraeus first knew about the investigation that uncovered his affair -- and whether it impacted his statements to Congress on Sept. 14 about the Libya terror attack.
Petraeus briefed lawmakers that day that the attack was akin to a flash mob, and some top lawmakers noted to Fox News he seemed "wedded" to the administration's narrative that it was a demonstration spun out of control. The briefing appeared to conflict with one from the FBI and National Counterterrorism Center a day earlier in which officials said the intelligence supported an Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda-affiliated attack.
Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., told Fox News he now questions whether Petraeus' statements -- which were in conflict with both the FBI briefing and available raw intelligence -- were in any way impacted by the knowledge the FBI was investigating his affair with Broadwell.
King questioned whether the investigation "consciously or subconsciously" affected his statements to Congress.
Fox News' Catherine Herridge contributed to this report.
Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11 ... z2CD7OyBvz