Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums"The C.I.A.’s Part in Benghazi"
The C.I.A.s Part in BenghaziBy THE EDITORIAL BOARD at the NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/opinion/the-cias-part-in-benghazi.html?smid=re-share&_r=0
"SNIP......................
Other e-mails show that it was the F.B.I., which led the inquiry, and the C.I.A.s general counsel and deputy director who wanted references to Ansar al-Sharia deleted to avoid compromising the investigation. Another intelligence official wrote that there was no actionable intelligence that foretold an attack of the kind that occurred.
Republicans faulted the State Department for objecting to the C.I.A.s initial draft. But the department seemed concerned mostly that the C.I.A. would say more to lawmakers than what could be shared with reporters or that the C.I.A. was trying to suggest that warnings about the attack had been ignored.
To a degree, the wrangling occurred because the C.I.A. annex was a classified operation. In fact, the C.I.A. was the main American presence on the ground in Benghazi, had relationships with local groups and was supposed to have the best fix on what was going on. There are serious questions as to why the agency did not have a better handle on security and didnt do a better job of vetting the local militia that was hired for protection.
The State Department did a full a public review of its behavior and accepted the conclusion that systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels in two bureaus created a security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place. Reforms are under way. Congress needs to look closely at the C.I.A.s role and insist that the agency do the same.
......................SNIP"
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
8 replies, 1351 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (8)
ReplyReply to this post
8 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
"The C.I.A.’s Part in Benghazi" (Original Post)
applegrove
May 2013
OP
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)1. What was the CIA up to in Benghazi?
applegrove
(118,642 posts)2. I read yesterday that the CIA and Stevens
were involved in trying to buy back shoulder to air missiles that were lost during the Libyan civil war two years ago. It wasn't from a reputable source/or a source I was familiar with so I didn't post it on the DU. Don't know if that is true. But it makes alot of sense if Ambassador Stevens was there to buy weapons back from militants and they used the opportunity to ambush the Americans.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)3. Torture would be my guess.
An increased military presence would not be be desirable if a covert torture operation was going on.
Berlum
(7,044 posts)4. "Move along. Nothing to see here." - Pet Rayus (R)
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)5. Hmmmm.
kentuck
(111,089 posts)6. Maybe this is why Repubs have put it on the back burner??
Never mind...
malaise
(268,968 posts)7. But but but Betrayus resigned over some sex scandal
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)8. But that doesn't fit the storyline that the GOP wants to push. You know it was Susan Rice and Obama
and HRC who is to blame.