The ORIGINAL gathering place for a merry band of Three Percenters. (As denounced by Bill Clinton on CNN!)
Monday, July 14, 2014
Regime tries to get ahead of the Benghazi hearings with selective leaks.
When you read this, ask yourself the old Marine counterintelligence officer's questions: "Why is this SOB telling me this? And why is this SOB telling me this NOW?"
5 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Wasn't there a report of Ham being relieved of his duty by a CIA "minder"when he wanted to act on his own?
"He believed some militants had missiles capable of downing a plane."
This statement is critical.
Why? B/c it tells you what Benghazi was really about.
We gave these anti-aircraft missiles to these "terrorists" hoping they'd use them in Arab Spring uprisings. When it became apparent they may be used in IRQ and A-Stan against Americans, we sent that CIA team and the ambassador to try and buy them back. Once we had regained possession of some of the weapons, the "terrorists" attacked the embassy to regain the weapons and keep the money from the buy back.
That's why General Ham thought they had such weapons and didn't send in F16s.
This is all one big cover up....from yet another adventure in "nation building".
From a now defunct link on Market-Ticker.Org's site:
Gun-Running In Benghazi: Told You So in [Market-Ticker]
Gun-Running In Benghazi: Told You So Time for this one again:
Why? This, which I wrote right after the attack happened:
The predicate to all of this appears to have been the giving of heavy munitions to militants that may have been related to or connected with (or may have actually been!) Al-Qaida, which then "leaked" beyond where the people who gave those munitions intended them to go and be used. Is it acceptable that our government gave heavy weapons to a publicly-sworn enemy of our nation? There are multiple credible reports that the reason the Benghazi safe-house was hit was because the CIA was attempting to recover those weapons through what amounted to buying them back (that is, bribery.) You must once again decide whether or not giving heavy weapons to known and declared enemies of the United State is acceptable under any circumstances, and if not, what you intend to do about it. This is not the first time we have armed belligerents on purpose; is thatacceptable? Specifically, "Gun Runner" or "Fast and Furious" armed belligerent Mexican Drug Lords when then used some of those guns to shoot a United States citizen. They also, it must be presumed, used them to shoot a lot of innocent Mexican citizens. The key question here is when we as Americans will have had enough of this crap -- it didn't start with Obama, but he sure as hell has taken to a new level of art. Back during the Iran-Contra days we indicted and convicted 11 but then sat back while George HW Bush pardoned all of those who didn't manage to beat the charges on appeal. Isn't that nice?
And even better, there is good reason to believe that the people we were arming are affiliated with Al-Qaida, which if you remember is an actual military enemy by the declaration of our government. This means that if we were arming an entity connected to same all the people involved certainly appear to have committed black-letter Treason. And what do we have now? “We’re getting calls from people who are close to people who were [in Benghazi at the time] that they were moving guns. So where are the guns?” asked Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), a sub-committee chairman of the Appropriations Committee. Wolf also wonders what Ambassador Chris Stevens was actually doing in Benghazi on that night. Stevens and three others were killed over the course of the attacks. “Are they in a warehouse somewhere? Some people say they moved on to Turkey and then from Turkey to Syria," Wolf told Breitbart News on Thursday. "Did they fall into the hands of some of the Jihadis?" Or were they given to some of the Jihadis? As for the CIA? Since January, some CIA operatives involved in the agency's missions in Libya, have been subjected to frequent, even monthly polygraph examinations, according to a source with deep inside knowledge of the agency's workings. The goal of the questioning, according to sources, is to find out if anyone is talking to the media or Congress. This situation is not, as commonly claimed, analogous to what happened with Iran-Contra. While that was clearly a criminal act (and people were actually indicted and prosecuted for it) the Contras were not active enemies of America nor were we engaged in military operations against them. In the case of Al-Qaida we are -- in Afghanistan -- at least if you believe our government. Further, Al-Qaida has been declared an "enemy" by both Presidential and Congressional action. Yes, we didn't declare war against Al-Qaida but by declaring it an enemy of the nation the crime of Treason would logically attach to those who adhere or give aid and comfort to the entity and its offshoots. (Art III, Section 3.) Arming them certainly fits that definition!
Apparently, "gun running" under this administration isn't just limited to Fast and Furious....they were arming Taliban and AQ indirectly through Benghazi.
5 comments:
Wasn't there a report of Ham being relieved of his duty by a CIA "minder"when he wanted to act on his own?
Meanwhile Clinton's infamous "what difference does it make" narrative hit's the Dem MSM talking head airwaves..over and over and over.
From the article:
"He believed some militants had missiles capable of downing a plane."
This statement is critical.
Why? B/c it tells you what Benghazi was really about.
We gave these anti-aircraft missiles to these "terrorists" hoping they'd use them in Arab Spring uprisings. When it became apparent they may be used in IRQ and A-Stan against Americans, we sent that CIA team and the ambassador to try and buy them back. Once we had regained possession of some of the weapons, the "terrorists" attacked the embassy to regain the weapons and keep the money from the buy back.
That's why General Ham thought they had such weapons and didn't send in F16s.
This is all one big cover up....from yet another adventure in "nation building".
The sad part is: they'll get away with it.
From a now defunct link on Market-Ticker.Org's site:
Gun-Running In Benghazi: Told You So in [Market-Ticker]
Gun-Running In Benghazi: Told You So
Time for this one again:
Why? This, which I wrote right after the attack happened:
The predicate to all of this appears to have been the giving of heavy munitions to militants that may have been related to or connected with (or may have actually been!) Al-Qaida, which then "leaked" beyond where the people who gave those munitions intended them to go and be used. Is it acceptable that our government gave heavy weapons to a publicly-sworn enemy of our nation? There are multiple credible reports that the reason the Benghazi safe-house was hit was because the CIA was attempting to recover those weapons through what amounted to buying them back (that is, bribery.) You must once again decide whether or not giving heavy weapons to known and declared enemies of the United State is acceptable under any circumstances, and if not, what you intend to do about it.
This is not the first time we have armed belligerents on purpose; is thatacceptable? Specifically, "Gun Runner" or "Fast and Furious" armed belligerent Mexican Drug Lords when then used some of those guns to shoot a United States citizen. They also, it must be presumed, used them to shoot a lot of innocent Mexican citizens. The key question here is when we as Americans will have had enough of this crap -- it didn't start with Obama, but he sure as hell has taken to a new level of art. Back during the Iran-Contra days we indicted and convicted 11 but then sat back while George HW Bush pardoned all of those who didn't manage to beat the charges on appeal. Isn't that nice?
And even better, there is good reason to believe that the people we were arming are affiliated with Al-Qaida, which if you remember is an actual military enemy by the declaration of our government.
This means that if we were arming an entity connected to same all the people involved certainly appear to have committed black-letter Treason.
And what do we have now?
“We’re getting calls from people who are close to people who were [in Benghazi at the time] that they were moving guns. So where are the guns?” asked Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), a sub-committee chairman of the Appropriations Committee. Wolf also wonders what Ambassador Chris Stevens was actually doing in Benghazi on that night. Stevens and three others were killed over the course of the attacks.
“Are they in a warehouse somewhere? Some people say they moved on to Turkey and then from Turkey to Syria," Wolf told Breitbart News on Thursday. "Did they fall into the hands of some of the Jihadis?"
Or were they given to some of the Jihadis?
As for the CIA?
Since January, some CIA operatives involved in the agency's missions in Libya, have been subjected to frequent, even monthly polygraph examinations, according to a source with deep inside knowledge of the agency's workings.
The goal of the questioning, according to sources, is to find out if anyone is talking to the media or Congress.
This situation is not, as commonly claimed, analogous to what happened with Iran-Contra. While that was clearly a criminal act (and people were actually indicted and prosecuted for it) the Contras were not active enemies of America nor were we engaged in military operations against them.
In the case of Al-Qaida we are -- in Afghanistan -- at least if you believe our government. Further, Al-Qaida has been declared an "enemy" by both Presidential and Congressional action. Yes, we didn't declare war against Al-Qaida but by declaring it an enemy of the nation the crime of Treason would logically attach to those who adhere or give aid and comfort to the entity and its offshoots. (Art III, Section 3.)
Arming them certainly fits that definition!
Apparently, "gun running" under this administration isn't just limited to Fast and Furious....they were arming Taliban and AQ indirectly through Benghazi.
http://nypost.com/2014/06/08/how-the-taliban-got-their-hands-on-modern-us-missiles/
Post a Comment