Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content
  • CRYPTO REWARDS!

    Full endorsement on this opportunity - but it's limited, so get in while you can!

Benghazi US consulate ‘was mainly CIA operation


Rayzur
 Share

Recommended Posts

Benghazi US consulate ‘was mainly CIA operation’

Wall Street Journal reveals just seven of 30 US officials evacuated from Libyan city worked for State Department.

They were on a secret mission

WASHINGTON - The US mission in Benghazi that came under attack by militants on September 11 was mainly a secret CIA operation, the Wall Street Journal reported Friday, shedding new light on the deadly assault.

President Barack Obama's administration has faced a storm of pre-election questions about why there was not more security at the US consulate where four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, were killed on September 11.

The Wall Street Journal said the mission was mainly a CIA operation, adding that of the 30 American officials evacuated from Benghazi following the assault, just seven worked for the State Department.

It also identified the two security contractors killed in the attack -- former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty -- as working for the Central Intelligence Agency and not the State Department.

In a break from tradition, it said CIA Director David Petraeus did not attend the ceremony when the coffins arrived back on American soil in order to conceal the CIA operation in eastern Libya.

It said the nearly two dozen CIA operatives secretly worked out of a separate building known as the "annex," where officials at the consulate had retreated following the initial attack before coming under fire again.

The operation, which hit the ground shortly after the start of the February 2011 revolt that overthrew Libyan dictator Moamer Gathafi -- was aimed at counterterrorism and securing heavy weapons held by the embattled regime.

The Journal suggested that the security lapse may have been due to miscommunication between the CIA and the State Department, with the latter assuming the annex security team was a sufficient backup for its own guards.

"They were the cavalry," it quoted a senior US official as saying.

The Journal said that the day after the attack, the CIA sent Libyan security officials to the annex to destroy classified documents and sensitive equipment while leaving the charred and ransacked consulate -- which by design had contained no classified materials -- unattended.

  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

PS.. and I am quoting versus opining : "“that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the US consulate and subsequent attack several hours later on the annex itself was denied by the CIA chain of command.”

Just in case folks want to genuinely know exactly where the "stand down"/denial command was asserted....... And to be clear, this is in no way whatsoever on my part blaming anyone in that position of having to make that call, ......nor am I suggesting the call should have been different. I was not there, do not have any of the RT/delay info provided the commander(s), and would not be arrogant enough to think I would have done any better in their shoes. I have been in those shoes, and it suks.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Benghazi US consulate ‘was mainly CIA operation’

Wall Street Journal reveals just seven of 30 US officials evacuated from Libyan city worked for State Department.

They were on a secret mission

WASHINGTON -

It also identified the two security contractors killed in the attack -- former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty -- as working for the Central Intelligence Agency and not the State Department.

In a break from tradition, it said CIA Director David Petraeus did not attend the ceremony when the coffins arrived back on American soil in order to conceal the CIA operation in eastern Libya.

It said the nearly two dozen CIA operatives secretly worked out of a separate building known as the "annex," where officials at the consulate had retreated following the initial attack before coming under fire again.

The operation, which hit the ground shortly after the start of the February 2011 revolt that overthrew Libyan dictator Moamer Gathafi -- was aimed at counterterrorism and securing heavy weapons held by the embattled regime.

I clearly remember getting my a** kicked around the block for questioning the fact that this may have NOT been an "Embassy Situation" as Flatdog timely pointed out.

(I looked for the thread to no avail... I could use a little help from my friends... really doesn't matter that much... well maybe to show bias).

I said I would like to look in to it a little more... and all hell broke loose when Granny said I was heartless towards the families of the victims.

Ok here we are now... This was a CIA Mission... NOT a "peace keeping" mission.

"The operation, which hit the ground shortly after the start of the February 2011 revolt that overthrew Libyan dictator Moamer Gathafi -- was aimed at counterterrorism and securing heavy weapons held by the embattled regime".

While loss of anyones life is sad... There is so much more to this than what Fox is telling you folks, Really...

Correct me if I am wrong Rayzor... Always Appreciate You.

  • Upvote 6
  • Downvote 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes Maggie, there is much more than is being reported to civilian folk.... as it should be quite frankly B)

And mark my words, it is absolutely reprehensible it hit the news the way it did and so blatantly suggesting there were things hidden. There are!!!.... and when it remains hidden, our men and women serving our country stay much safer in doing their job.

And to all those journalists who contributed to this debacle, I can now say: Great idea folks.... blow out a covert operation for the world to see, keep hammering it to make sure the entire frickin world knows it is covert in your demand for answers and be certain every freakin nutjob on the planet knows tthat we have our agency in a soverign nation, doing the work necessary to protect this soverign nation and every other country. How safe do ya think our guys are now? We lost lives of honorable men last month. How many more lives do you think you just sacrificed for your stupid misguided effort to win no matter what... to be right about your point of view? Whatever that might be..... cause it sure ain't national security, interest, or protection. Whose sons and daughters did you just put in the crosshairs for the sake of yellow journalism?

At this time no one is really able to accurately estimate or calibrate the blow back from this..... and I for one, am genuinely rachet up/edgy right now in terms of who or what is next because of it.

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, finally some accurate news. When are people going to understand that the tube is a mind control machine? Majority of the things that we see are manufactured for reasons that are very difficult to figure out. TPB are playing a strange game and it seems our fear and emotions are the currency. This Benghazi US consulate thing was clearly al-CIA-da from the start. Embassy or not an Embassy? Consulate or not a Consulate? Is it a just a building where the consulate just so happen to be staying? Did Obama announce it was terror or not terror? Did he announce that it was terror fast enough? Did Obama deny extra protection for the consulate? Did Obama actually watch it live from a drone? Hell, these mind control freaks even made a fake movie to blame the al-CIA-da event on. They also put out a subliminal of a Ben Affleck movie(Argo) ,about a fake movie that they used to free hostages in Iran, at the exact same on the tube that the Innocence of Muslims was being plastered all over the media. What a complete mindf*#$@! We better start trying to figure out the game so we can understand how we are being used.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fallow the FOX news networks you will learn all you want, the only Real News Network that tells the truth no cover ups and no Bias bullshtttttt. They tell it like it is . And they have Real journalist working for them not wannabees. :rolleyes:

and you didn't laugh after that statement! :mellow:

  • Upvote 6
  • Downvote 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

WSJ: State Dept. and CIA had secret, botched deal for Benghazi security

151977584.jpg A Libyan security guard at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. (GIANLUIGI GUERCIA/AFP/GettyImages)

Of all of the questions surrounding the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, one that has seemed especially puzzling is the apparently insufficient security there. A new report from the Wall Street Journal sheds light on this, revealing what the paper says was a secret and possibly confused arrangement between the State Department and Central Intelligence Agency.

The CIA is said to have been the dominant U.S. presence in Benghazi, where it had a “symbiotic” relationship with the State Department consulate that served as cover for its staff. “The State Department believed it had a formal agreement with the CIA to provide backup security,” the Journal says, “although a congressional investigator said it now appears the CIA didn’t have the same understanding about its security responsibilities.”

But, on Sept. 11, the arrangement for the CIA to provide “emergency” security to the consulate apparently did not unfold as the State Department had expected:

Congressional investigators say it appears that the CIA and State Department weren’t on the same page about their respective roles on security, underlining the rift between agencies over taking responsibility and raising questions about whether the security arrangement in Benghazi was flawed.

The CIA’s secret role helps explain why security appeared inadequate at the U.S. diplomatic facility. State Department officials believed that responsibility was set to be shouldered in part by CIA personnel in the city through a series of secret agreements that even some officials in Washington didn’t know about.

Two questions immediately strike me about this. The first: what is the gap between what the State Department expected from the CIA force and what it got on Sept. 11?

The CIA had force of “roughly 10,” located at their separate “annex” building a mile away. The night of the attack, they sent a seven-man team that arrived in 50 minutes, including a delay of several minutes as agency officials tried and failed to contact Libyans who had been hired to provide security. The CIA force remained at the consulate for one hour before leaving with all the Americans except for the ambassador.

Is State’s gripe with the CIA that they didn’t arrive more quickly? That they weren’t able to better secure the consulate? Or that they did not ultimately succeed in protecting their ambassador? A congressional investigator cited the CIA’s delay in responding as evidence that “the secret CIA-State security arrangement was inadequate.”

This gets to my second question: If the State Department believed it could rely on the CIA for emergency security, and if the congressional investigator sees the incident as a failure of the State-CIA security arrangement, then why were Ambassador Chris Stevens and his staff seeking additional consulate security from local and national Libyan authorities before the attack? Based on unsigned letters discovered at the consulate grounds weeks after the attack, it appears that Stevens did not see the building’s day-to-day security as adequate and was asking for more.

This day-to-day Libyan-provided security is distinct from the “emergency” CIA security, but if Stevens saw the former as insufficient, then why now is there so much focus on the latter’s inability to save the day?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<B>

Congressional investigators say ...

Is State’s gripe with the CIA that they didn’t arrive more quickly? That they weren’t able to better secure the consulate? Or that they did not ultimately succeed in protecting their ambassador?
A congressional investigator
cited the CIA’s delay in responding as evidence that “the secret CIA-State security arrangement was inadequate.”

</B>

The "Congressional Investigator" that was in the lead of this premature campaign to rush to judgment was Darrell Issa...

In his hurry to capitalize on his agenda... he outed cooperative Libyan peoples names across the worldwide net when HE released the emails.

That did not help in any way shape or form... as Rayzor clearly pointed out.

www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/.../
darrell
-
issa
-
libya
_n_1991064.html
You +1'd this publicly.
Oct 20, 2012 –
House Oversight Committee Chairman
Darrell Issa
(R- Calif.) has come under fire after posting 166 pages of "sensitive but unclassified" State
...

<LI class=g>

www.huffingtonpost.com/.../john-kerry-
darrell
-
issa
-_n_1992826.ht...
You +1'd this publicly.
Oct 20, 2012 –
Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) criticized House Oversight Committee Chairman
Darrell Issa
(R- Calif.) for releasing 166 pages of "sensitive but
...

<LI id=newsbox class=g>

6.jpg


  1. Gretawire (blog)
    ‎ - 1 day ago
    See press release from Congressman Issa's office below…
    ...
    Documents indicating involvement of
    Libyan
    Government personnel in Benghazi
    ...
    Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman
    Darrell Issa
    (R-CA)
    ...

<LI class=g>

www.politico.com ›
You +1'd this publicly.
Oct 20, 2012 –
The already contentious Hill investigation into the Benghazi attacks escalated Saturday when two top Democrats ripped Rep.
Darrell Issa
...

<LI class=g>

abcnews.go.com/.../rahm-emanuel-
darrell
-
issa
-reckless-for-...
You +1'd this publicly.
- in 904,376 Google+ circles -

Oct 21, 2012 –
ABC Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel lashed out at Rep.
Darrell Issa
, R-Calif, this morning on “This Week” after the chairman of the House
...

<LI class=g>

www.politicususa.com/investigating-security-leaks-
darrell
-
issa
-puts-
li
...
You +1'd this publicly.
Oct 19, 2012 –
Darrell Issa
(R-CA) has placed several Libyans lives at risk, in the course of investigating the alleged security issues regarding the attacks in
...

<LI class=g>

thecable.foreignpolicy.com/.../
issa
_s_benghazi_document_dump_ex...
You +1'd this publicly.
Oct 19, 2012 –
House Oversight Committee Chairman
Darrell Issa
(R-CA)
...
but unclassified State Department communications related to
Libya
on the
...

<LI class=g>

www.alternet.org/.../disgusting-
darrell
-
issa
-house-republicans-politici...
You +1'd this publicly.
Oct 10, 2012 –
House Republicans absurdly say Obama put Americans at risk to boost election prospects.

<LI class=g>

www.dailykos.com/.../--Democrat-Jerry-Tetalman-s-Statement-on-Re...
You +1'd this publicly.
20 hours ago –
Darrell Issa's
reckless actions could compromise the identities and jeopardize the safety of
Libyan
citizens working with the U.S. government,”
...

<LI class=g>

www.dailykos.com/.../--Democrat-Jerry-Tetalman-s-Statement-on-Re...
You +1'd this publicly.
Oct 22, 2012 –
Darrell Issa's
release of sensitive State Department cables relating to
Libya
. “
Darrell Issa's
reckless actions could compromise the identities and
...

<LI class=g>

thehill.com/.../261927-
issa
-accuses-administration-of-mission-accom...
You +1'd this publicly.
Oct 14, 2012 –
...
and Government Reform Committee Chairman
Darrell Issa
(R-Calif.)
...
Last week, Issa said he wanted a new briefing on
Libya
from senior
...

The "Congressional Investigator" that was in the lead of this premature campaign to rush to judgment was Darrell Issa...

In his hurry to capitalize on his agenda... he outed cooperative Libyan peoples names across the worldwide net when HE released the emails.

That did not help in any way shape or form... as Rayzor clearly pointed out.

Quote came out wrong... but you can get my point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Screen-Shot-2012-10-19-at-9.45.31-PM-300x160.png

House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) has placed several Libyans lives at risk in the course of investigating the alleged security issues regarding the deaths of four Americans in Libya on September 11, 2012.

Issa uploaded scores of sensitive material and didn’t redact names of Libyan civilians or local leaders, exposing them to physical danger from the very people the Obama administration is investigating regarding the September 11, 2012 attacks.

Speaking to The Cable, an administration official said, “Much like WikiLeaks, when you dump a bunch of documents into the ether, there are a lot of unintended consequences. This does damage to the individuals because they are named, danger to security cooperation because these are militias and groups that we work with and that is now well known, and danger to the investigation, because these people could help us down the road.”

This comes after Issa already outed a CIA base in Libya during the course of this (one of many) partisan witch hunt, allegedly based on concerns over security. As Richard Clarke explained, however, anyone who thinks that initial information is correct knows nothing about terrorism or combat.

Issa is doing the exact same thing his party did when we first discussed going into Libya and they were warned by their own party policy makers to stop giving aid to our enemies just because they wanted to cause problems for President Obama.

So, Darrell Issa has leaked important information while investigating alleged leaks of security — again. He is doing more damage in this investigation than our enemies could have hoped for. This is hardly Issa’s first go at hacking up a partisan witch hunt of this administration.

http://www.politicususa.com/investigating-security-leaks-darrell-issa-puts-libyans-lives-risk.html

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you believe this anymore than that the attack was caused by a youtube video? Spin, spin,spin....lies lies lies. You are dealing with a government incapable of telling the truth, just like most of the media.

In the belief that your question is genuine, I would answer because of what I have done and do for a living, because I have been commanded and in command of these kind of situations, and because I not retired and believe in the alligence behind the oath I took to protect this country, I won't say much more.

I'm also not using anything I say as a platform to support or negate either one of the presidential candidates and would suggest it is reprehensible to dilute the honor and respect due these dead heros, by making their death nothing more than a plank in a national contest. Allow the honorable death of these men to stand as a testament to their lives of service and sit in a humble moment of gratitude, thanking them for the sacrifice they gave as individuals dying to defend their brothers in service to this country.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Benghazi US consulate ‘was mainly CIA operation’

Wall Street Journal reveals just seven of 30 US officials evacuated from Libyan city worked for State Department.

They were on a secret mission

WASHINGTON - The US mission in Benghazi that came under attack by militants on September 11 was mainly a secret CIA operation, the Wall Street Journal reported Friday, shedding new light on the deadly assault.

President Barack Obama's administration has faced a storm of pre-election questions about why there was not more security at the US consulate where four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, were killed on September 11.

The Wall Street Journal said the mission was mainly a CIA operation, adding that of the 30 American officials evacuated from Benghazi following the assault, just seven worked for the State Department.

It also identified the two security contractors killed in the attack -- former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty -- as working for the Central Intelligence Agency and not the State Department.

In a break from tradition, it said CIA Director David Petraeus did not attend the ceremony when the coffins arrived back on American soil in order to conceal the CIA operation in eastern Libya.

It said the nearly two dozen CIA operatives secretly worked out of a separate building known as the "annex," where officials at the consulate had retreated following the initial attack before coming under fire again.

The operation, which hit the ground shortly after the start of the February 2011 revolt that overthrew Libyan dictator Moamer Gathafi -- was aimed at counterterrorism and securing heavy weapons held by the embattled regime.

The Journal suggested that the security lapse may have been due to miscommunication between the CIA and the State Department, with the latter assuming the annex security team was a sufficient backup for its own guards.

"They were the cavalry," it quoted a senior US official as saying.

The Journal said that the day after the attack, the CIA sent Libyan security officials to the annex to destroy classified documents and sensitive equipment while leaving the charred and ransacked consulate -- which by design had contained no classified materials -- unattended.

and we are suppose to believe this? Someones just trying to untie the not obummer is in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and we are suppose to believe this? Someones just trying to untie the not obummer is in.

Sounds plausible to me.

Why wouldn't you believe it? You have to wait for fox to report it?

Fox news and the WSJ are both owned by Murdoch, but the WSJ is MUCH more credible.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fallow the FOX news networks you will learn all you want, the only Real News Network that tells the truth no cover ups and no Bias bullshtttttt. They tell it like it is . And they have Real journalist working for them not wannabees. :rolleyes:

Please define "fallow".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We'll qualify this comment from the start: I don't like barry. I think he is amongst the worst 2 or 3 Presidents this country has had.

Seems the faux conservatives and fox news want to hold him responsible for the 9/11 attack in Benghazi. His failure in providing enough security allowed this attack to happen.

I'm down with that.

If we were to calla spade a spade, w is responsible for the original 9/11 attack.

Search it. There was much intel on a coming attack, and his administration allowed it to happen.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We'll qualify this comment from the start: I don't like barry. I think he is amongst the worst 2 or 3 Presidents this country has had.

Seems the faux conservatives and fox news want to hold him responsible for the 9/11 attack in Benghazi. His failure in providing enough security allowed this attack to happen.

I'm down with that.

If we were to calla spade a spade, w is responsible for the original 9/11 attack.

Search it. There was much intel on a coming attack, and his administration allowed it to happen.

Well That Was Easy rolleyes.gif Here You Go... sorry about the misprints... but you can get the idea. rolleyes.gif

About 5,040,000 results (0.22 seconds)

Search Results


  1. The Bush White House Was Deaf to 9/11 Warnings - NYTimes.com
    www.nytimes.com/.../09/11/.../the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-1...You +1'd this publicly. UndoSep 10, 2012 – The Bush administration was told, as early as May 2001, about the threat of an attack by Al Qaeda.

  2. Bush Received More Warnings About 9/11 Than We Realized ...
    www.businessinsider.com/new-report-shows-how-many-wa...CachedYou +1'd this publicly. Undoby Gus Lubin - More by Gus Lubin
    Sep 11, 2012 – The Bush White House ignored even more warnings about September 11 than we thought, according to journalist Kurt Eichenwald, who has a ...
    More by Gus Lubin<LI class=g>
    Evidence piles up that Bush administration got many pre-9/11 ...
    ►►openchannel.nbcnews.com/_.../09/11/13809524-evide...Sep 11, 2012
    On the 11th anniversary of the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil, there is mounting evidence that the Bush ...
    <LI class=g>

    ► 9:24► 9:24www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1aifunETmUJun 16, 2009 - 9 min - Uploaded by mustfarhan
    Exposin Hollywood and control of illuminati, and revealations for future incidents in movies to warn own people ...
    More videos for warnings of 911 »

  3. Bush Administration Ignored Multiple Warnings of 9-11, Claimed Bin ...
    news.firedoglake.com/.../09/11/bush-administration-ignored-multiple...CachedYou +1'd this publicly. UndoSep 11, 2012 – Today is the day in our quadrennial orgy of political campaigning where the two sides lay down their arms and grow silent in commemoration of ...

  4. Report: Documents Disclose 9/11 Warnings - Yahoo! News
    news.yahoo.com/report-documents-disclose-9-11-warnings-0811565...CachedYou +1'd this publicly. UndoSep 11, 2012 – From Yahoo! News: Documents show the U.S. was given more warnings about potential terrorist attacks in the weeks leading up to 9/11, writes ...

  5. Bush Administration Ignored 9/11 Warnings -- Daily Intel
    nymag.com/.../bush-administration-ignored-september-11-warnings....CachedYou +1'd this publicly. UndoSep 11, 2012 – Kurt Eichenwald reports damning new revelations in a New York 'Times' op-ed.

  6. The Bush White House Was Deaf To 9/11 Warnings
    www.huffingtonpost.com/.../bush-white-house-911-warnings_n_187...CachedYou +1'd this publicly. UndoSep 10, 2012 – The Bush administration was told, as early as May 2001, about the threat of an attack by Al Qaeda.

  7. Reporter: Bush 'negligence' ignored pre-9/11 warnings | The Raw ...
    www.rawstory.com/.../09/11/reporter-bush-negligence-igno...CachedYou +1'd this publicly. Undoby Stephen C. Webster - in 929 Google+ circles - More by Stephen C. Webster
    Sep 11, 2012 – Reporter Kurt Eichenwald, author of a key book exploring the terror war, castigates the Bush administration in a New York Times editorial ...
    More by Stephen C. Webster

  8. George Bush Was Given 6 Warnings Before 9/11 (DETAILS) | Global ...
    globalgrind.com/.../president-george-w-bush-given-6-warnings-befo...CachedYou +1'd this publicly. UndoSep 11, 2012 – Today marks 11 years since al-Qaeda struck the World Trade Center, killing nearly 3,000 innocent men and women. As time goes on, many ...

Edited by Maggie123
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bush Received More Warnings About 9/11 Than We RealizedGus Lubin | Sep. 11, 2012, 7:26 AM | 21,042 | 104

george-w-bush.jpgWikimedia Commons

The Bush White House ignored even more warnings about September 11 than we thought, according to journalist Kurt Eichenwald, who has a column in the NYT and a new book out today.

We already knew about the presidential brief from Aug. 6, 2001 that was titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” The White House has shown that this declassified document was primarily a history of Al Qaeda, not a warning of imminent attack.

But there were other briefings, some seen by Eichenwald, that did warn of an imminent attack.

On May 1 the CIA said that a terrorist group in the U.S. was planning an attack.

On June 22 it warned that this attack was "imminent."

On June 29 the brief warned of near-term attacks with "dramatic consequences" including major casualties.

On July 1, the briefing said that the terrorist attack had been delayed but "will occur soon."

On July 24, the president was told again that the attack had been delayed but would occur within months.

These and other similar warnings were ignored by the White House. The Neocons in charge insisted that the threat was instead a coordinated diversion meant to distract attention from Saddam Hussein, according to Eichenwald. This opinion frustrated the intelligence community, who saw the theory as totally illogical.

Eichenwald's column is already getting a lot of attention today. No doubt so will his book, 500 Days: Secrets And Lies In The Terror Wars.

Read more: http://www.businessi...9#ixzz2BEwyM7lS

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bush Received More Warnings About 9/11 Than We RealizedGus Lubin | Sep. 11, 2012, 7:26 AM | 21,042 | 104

george-w-bush.jpgWikimedia Commons

The Bush White House ignored even more warnings about September 11 than we thought, according to journalist Kurt Eichenwald, who has a column in the NYT and a new book out today.

We already knew about the presidential brief from Aug. 6, 2001 that was titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” The White House has shown that this declassified document was primarily a history of Al Qaeda, not a warning of imminent attack.

But there were other briefings, some seen by Eichenwald, that did warn of an imminent attack.

On May 1 the CIA said that a terrorist group in the U.S. was planning an attack.

On June 22 it warned that this attack was "imminent."

On June 29 the brief warned of near-term attacks with "dramatic consequences" including major casualties.

On July 1, the briefing said that the terrorist attack had been delayed but "will occur soon."

On July 24, the president was told again that the attack had been delayed but would occur within months.

These and other similar warnings were ignored by the White House. The Neocons in charge insisted that the threat was instead a coordinated diversion meant to distract attention from Saddam Hussein, according to Eichenwald. This opinion frustrated the intelligence community, who saw the theory as totally illogical.

Eichenwald's column is already getting a lot of attention today. No doubt so will his book, 500 Days: Secrets And Lies In The Terror Wars.

Read more: http://www.businessi...9#ixzz2BEwyM7lS

Bush/Republicans must have been Godless to avoid those clear warnings. It was a disgrace to the American people not to protect the country and American lives as a President should. Of course, whether true or not, I say this with cynicism only mirroring the idiotic things republicans believe and say. I forgive Bush and the republicans for their stupidity. We're pass that now!

Edited by simple
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bush/Republicans must have been Godless to avoid those clear warnings. It was a disgrace to the American people not to protect the country and American lives as a President should. Of course, whether true or not, I say this with cynicism only mirroring the idiotic things republicans believe and say. I forgive Bush and the republicans for their stupidity. We're pass that now!

Simple

I thought you might find this information useful;

A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary.

Delusions typically occur in the context of neurological or mental illness, although they are not tied to any particular disease and have been found to occur in the context of many pathological states (both physical and mental).

Cynicism would be "Obama is a good commander and chief"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not really interested in debating all of this with any of you, BUT I will add this little bit of info:

Don't you find it slightly ridiculous that all of you now (in hindsight) are so critical of Bush for not "acting" on

the intelligence reports he received about an "imminent" attack in 2001 while criticizing him for "acting" on

reports from the SAME intelligence sources about "WMD" in Iraq. Really!! :wacko:

Sometimes, your damned if you do and damned if you don't. :blink:

Might I add, if slick willy had taken care of Bin Laden when he had multiple chances, 9/11 would never

have happened. (Just another 20/20 hindsight observation like all of you). :twocents:

:rocking-chair:

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.