Benghazi: People Died Obama Lied

pineinthegrass wrote: One huge problem was that the facility was deemed temporary — as we have noted, most of the officials there were working for the CIA, not State — and thus it could not be funded with standard overseas building funds. (Despite persistent news media reports, this was not a “consulate”—far from it.)

And we know this now because Issa in his rush to judgement blew their cover and possibly put CIA personel in danger.
http://www.juancole.com/2012/11/republicans-tip-world-off-to-covert-cia-role-in-libya.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-letting-us-in-on-a-secret/2012/10/10/ba3136ca-132b-11e2-ba83-a7a396e6b2a7_print.html

Rick wrote: I hope our State Dept. isn't so inept, that they had no idea they set up shop in country with an unstable government and a population mixed with terrorists and still smoking rocket launchers.

From the information coming out, it wasn't a State Department run facility but a CIA facility.

If it was so dangerous, why did Stevens stay? Again the question of "what was he doing there?" is unanswered.

Photo-fish wrote:

Rick wrote: I hope our State Dept. isn't so inept, that they had no idea they set up shop in country with an unstable government and a population mixed with terrorists and still smoking rocket launchers.

From the information coming out, it wasn't a State Department run facility but a CIA facility.

If it was so dangerous, why did Stevens stay? Again the question of "what was he doing there?" is unanswered.

So it was Chris Steven's job to establish what kind of security was needed? Is that part of the job description? And so far, I haven't heard a peep from anyone in the State Dept, the WH. or the CIA who said "Chris said he didn't want security so we respected his wish".

This would be like Obama saying he wants to go for a walkk down Pennylvania Ave with his dog and saying to secret service "I'll be fine, just going to pick me up some smokes, be right back".

The FACT remains that security was asked for several times and was either denied or partiallly granted. We'll have to wait for this transparent administration to tell us who made those requests.

Rick wrote: The FACT remains that security was asked for several times and was either denied or partiallly granted. We'll have to wait for this transparent administration to tell us who made those requests

Well from the link that I posted on page 36. Some are saying that Stevens declined offers for more security 2 times in the month prior to the attack.

Rick wrote: And so far, I haven't heard a peep from anyone in the State Dept, the WH. or the CIA who said "Chris said he didn't want security so we respected his wish".

Lets wait and see if Issa calls in Hamm and Patreaus.

IF Petraeus is NOT called in and the Broadwell assertion goes UNaddressed, there will be a GAPING hole to explain......JMO.....

Photo-fish wrote:

pineinthegrass wrote: One huge problem was that the facility was deemed temporary — as we have noted, most of the officials there were working for the CIA, not State — and thus it could not be funded with standard overseas building funds. (Despite persistent news media reports, this was not a “consulate”—far from it.)

And we know this now because Issa in his rush to judgement blew their cover and possibly put CIA personel in danger.
http://www.juancole.com/2012/11/republicans-tip-world-off-to-covert-cia-role-in-libya.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-letting-us-in-on-a-secret/2012/10/10/ba3136ca-132b-11e2-ba83-a7a396e6b2a7_print.html

Let me know if I missed something, but I don't see what this has to do with this topic. All of this information you are talking about happened after the Benghazi attack. The compound was already burned and Stevens was already dead. So I guess you aren't saying something was disclosed which led to the Benghazi attack. Correct?

If we are talking about after the attack, I still don't see what this has to do with the Obama administration's story about the attack being caused by some Youtube video clips.

Assuming I understand your links correctly, we are now talking about the possibility of Issa disclosing that the Benghazi compound was CIA. If that's your point, the second link you gave said...

That the Benghazi compound had included a large CIA presence had been reported but not confirmed. The New York Times, for example, had reported that among those evacuated were “about a dozen CIA operatives and contractors.” The paper, like The Washington Post, withheld locations and details of the facilities at the administration’s request.

A dozen CIA operatives evacuated as reported by the NY Times seems like something that would catch someone's attention too.

Your first link didn't have a whole lot of details, so I followed the links. The first link from your first link takes you to a Daily Kos article. That's not a real reliable source, IMO. But I still read it. There wasn't enough details there too. But they linked to another source which I can't read since it's subscription only (it come up once, but I can't access now).

Your first link had a second link to support that Issa disclosed a CIA base. But that link is now broken.

At this point it looks like the CIA base at Benghazi may of been disclosed after it had already been attacked and burned. I'm not clear how that is an issue now, based on what I read in your links. The links did also suggest that names of Libyans who worked with the CIA had their names compromised. That would be a big deal. But the links also said the info presented was declassified. More info is needed and I still don't see what it has to do with the subject.

So I tried my best. But again, so far I don't see how this has much to do with this topic. If Issa did disclose something which led to the Benghazi attack, let me know. Otherwise, this seems like another topic.

ANOTHER perspective..... http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... w-it...the
CIA has much explaining to do..... :coffee-News:

Republicans Altered Benghazi Emails, CBS News Report Claims

One day after The White House released 100 pages of Benghazi emails, a report has surfaced alleging that Republicans released a set with altered text.

CBS News reported Thursday that leaked versions sent out by the GOP last Friday had visible differences than Wednesday's official batch. Two correspondences that were singled out in the report came from National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes and State Department Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland.

The GOP version of Rhodes' comment, according to CBS News: "We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don't want to undermine the FBI investigation."

The White House email: "We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation."

The GOP version of Nuland's comment, according to CBS News: The penultimate point is a paragraph talking about all the previous warnings provided by the Agency (CIA) about al-Qaeda's presence and activities of al-Qaeda."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-5 ... -reported/

..And after altering them, then they string them together to manufacture additional "outrage"...Imagine my surprise....

http://www.investors.com/image/RAMclr-051713-FNLFNLjpg.jpg.cms

[youtube:2tzhmmxf][/youtube:2tzhmmxf]