General Discussion

jamzrockz

(1,333 posts)

50. But why won't the administration

Thu Oct 22, 2015, 05:32 PM

Oct 2015

just throw the CIA under the boss? Maybe supporting the rebels very early on in the war is something that doesn't jive with the narrative of "we are only sending them non lethal arms"

Regardless, the buck stops with the president. The Libyan war is on him and Hillary and say they would have gotten off easy if this is all the grieve they got from destroying Libya and handing that country over to terrorists and starting a big war in Syria

This issue has been brought up by at least one republican and Clinton seems to deny knowing anything about weapon running to Syria.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

64 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

ONE simple fact: Benghazi was a covert CIA op under direction of Gen. Petraeus. [View all] blm Oct 2015 OP

I agree sandyshoes17 Oct 2015 #1

Is there a way for Hillary to trip them up and make them reveal that it was a CIA op that went bad? kelliekat44 Oct 2015 #28

at the very beginning The Tortoise revealed that there was a CIA presence there Angry Dragon Oct 2015 #32

Yet NONE of that comes out at these bullshit 'hearings'. blm Oct 2015 #55

I think it possible that both sides could be trying to lay that bait blm Oct 2015 #42

This isn't your fault but I hate it when a link directs me to an article behind a paywall tularetom Oct 2015 #2

Sorry - it wasn't behind a paywall when I posted it previously. blm Oct 2015 #3

There's a simple way to get around the WSJ paywall starroute Oct 2015 #5

Daily Mail picked up on WSJ report: blm Oct 2015 #6

Here's some links with info Ichingcarpenter Oct 2015 #7

Notice the absence of broadcast 'news' networks who ignored these facts blm Oct 2015 #8

I called it a CIA clustefuck from the beginning Ichingcarpenter Oct 2015 #9

Remember to thank our BFEE overlords for over 5 decades of Mideast madness. blm Oct 2015 #11

Yep. H2O Man Oct 2015 #12

And also know State cannot publicly admit it concedes to CIA on these matters blm Oct 2015 #13

Right. H2O Man Oct 2015 #14

+1 mmonk Oct 2015 #26

Aren't most State Department operations really just fronts? erronis Oct 2015 #25

Truth being that all 4 men killed knew they were acting with/for CIA. blm Oct 2015 #33

YEY YES YES SoLeftIAmRight Oct 2015 #4

Recommended. H2O Man Oct 2015 #10

Well, assuming it was a big gun-running operation, did the State Dept. know about it? TwilightGardener Oct 2015 #15

I'm with David Talbot - No prez has crossed 'Deep State' since Kennedy. blm Oct 2015 #16

I'd like a REAL investigation. Because something illegal/unethical may have occurred. TwilightGardener Oct 2015 #17

"This is blowback from CIA Bullshit run from a backwater embassy." bvar22 Oct 2015 #18

That secret CIA operation is the real Benghazi scandal. Comrade Grumpy Oct 2015 #19

Yes - further proof that GOP has NO INTEREST in the truth about Benghazi. blm Oct 2015 #21

This message was self-deleted by its author Comrade Grumpy Oct 2015 #20

They keep repeating that it was an "embassy" too. Spitfire of ATJ Oct 2015 #22

consulate with an annex being used by CIA just doesn't fit the GOP's storyline blm Oct 2015 #23

It was the size of a mini-mall too. Spitfire of ATJ Oct 2015 #29

Gowdy wants America to believe that Blumenthal is more relevant than Petraeus' blm Oct 2015 #34

He wants to prove there was a political motive to cover it up prior to the election.... Spitfire of ATJ Oct 2015 #39

LOLOLOLOL!!!! blm Oct 2015 #41

Petraeus' game was to make more war a go-go. Octafish Oct 2015 #24

Salute blm Oct 2015 #38

It was more of a CIA operation than a State Department operation... kentuck Oct 2015 #27

They are, but, they have to make the narrative they adopted for political reasons blm Oct 2015 #31

Yep. kentuck Oct 2015 #49

hey, old buddy�. blm Oct 2015 #52

That is EXACTLY what this is about, actually. joshcryer Oct 2015 #30

Dems are always at a disadvantage as they won't out CIA operatives while Republican blm Oct 2015 #36

Yup. K&R! nt riderinthestorm Oct 2015 #35

Perhaps some crowdsourcing action on the side too .. MinM Oct 2015 #37

They were running guns to al nusra in Syria AngryAmish Oct 2015 #40

Call me stupid, but if that's the case (and I believe it is) ... Myrina Oct 2015 #43

They know that DEEP STATE CIA answers to no president. Making it an issue would blm Oct 2015 #44

Saving link, thanks! Myrina Oct 2015 #45

Once its understood it can never be un-understood. blm Oct 2015 #47

Good article. ronnie624 Oct 2015 #58

Abso-fvcking-lutely!!!!! blm Oct 2015 #62

K & R !!! WillyT Oct 2015 #46

On Benghazi, just as Seymour Hersh wrote in 2014 seafan Oct 2015 #48

Hey, seaman��. long time. blm Oct 2015 #63

But why won't the administration jamzrockz Oct 2015 #50

LOLOL - You think a President Rand Paul would throw CIA under the bus on a matter blm Oct 2015 #51

President Paul jamzrockz Oct 2015 #53

Baloney on Paul - the entire point of Deep State is that no prez actually controls blm Oct 2015 #57

Pm Kick!! nt riderinthestorm Oct 2015 #54

kick for people to wake up and smell the capuccino librechik Oct 2015 #56

i assume this is why petraeus hasn't been called in front of this committee. spanone Oct 2015 #59

Exactly, their vote-getting storyline would be shot to pieces. blm Oct 2015 #61

.. which happened to take place on 9/11. ucrdem Oct 2015 #60

k&r nt Electric Monk Oct 2015 #64