Hilary looks logical now but when election time comes voting for a clinton is going to be a turn off. for a lot of folks . just time to move on
basso's probably right, but there is another Spoiler http://www.usmagazine.com/uploads/assets/article_photos/wendy-davis-lg.jpg
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-in-Benghazi-when-consulate-was-attacked.html CIA 'running arms smuggling team in Benghazi when consulate was attacked' The CIA has been subjecting operatives to monthly polygraph tests in an attempt to suppress details of a US arms smuggling operation in Benghazi that was ongoing when its ambassador was killed by a mob in the city last year, according to reports. Up to 35 CIA operatives were working in the city during the attack last September on the US consulate that resulted in the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, according to CNN. The circumstances of the attack are a subject of deep division in the US with some Congressional leaders pressing for a wide-ranging investigation into suspicions that the government has withheld details of its activities in the Libyan city. The television network said that a CIA team was working in an annex near the consulate on a project to supply missiles from Libyan armouries to Syrian rebels. Sources said that more Americans were hurt in the assault spearheaded by suspected Islamic radicals than had been previously reported. CIA chiefs were actively working to ensure the real nature of its operations in the city did not get out. So only the losses suffered by the State Department in the city had been reported to Congress. "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," CNN reported. Frank Wolf, a US congressman who represents the district that contains CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, is one of 150 members of Congress for a new investigation into the failures in Benghazi. "I think it is a form of a cover-up, and I think it's an attempt to push it under the rug, and I think the American people are feeling the same way," he said. "We should have the people who were on the scene come in, testify under oath, do it publicly, and lay it out. And there really isn't any national security issue involved with regards to that." A CIA spokesman said it had been open about its activities in Benghazi. "The CIA has worked closely with its oversight committees to provide them with an extraordinary amount of information related to the attack on US facilities in Benghazi," a CIA statement said. "CIA employees are always free to speak to Congress if they want," the statement continued. "The CIA enabled all officers involved in Benghazi the opportunity to meet with Congress. We are not aware of any CIA employee who has experienced retaliation, including any non-routine security procedures, or who has been prevented from sharing a concern with Congress about the Benghazi incident." ---------------------------------------------- When this occurred Obama said we would do everything to bring the people to justice that were responsible for this. As of today, not a thing has been done about this and now were are being told by Obama that this is a 'phony' scandal.
The CIA would try to keep their modus operandi a secret? What are they some kind of secret organization designed to manipulate world events?
Who gave them the go ahead to do what they were doing in Benghazi? Unless this was some rogue element within the Agency then this kind of operation was ordered at the highest levels. This also makes more sense why they didn't send in support and why they blamed this on a youtube video so as to keep the FBI out of Benghazi over 2 weeks until they could do their investigation. They needed time to cover their tracks. And that also means that they willing lied to the families of the fallen.
The CIA inventing a cover story has never happened before. Unless, of course, you take into account the entire history of the organization.
Who perpetuated that story to the media? And where did the initial go ahead for this operation come from? ---------------------------- http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...enghazi-worth-investigating-after-all/278299/ The Attack in Benghazi: Worth Investigating After All CNN reports that dozens of CIA agents were on the ground there -- and that they're being pressured to keep quiet. Why? Suddenly it is imperative that Congress investigate details surrounding the attack that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens. I've never felt that way before. But Drew Griffin's scoop* changed my mind. A bit of background: On September 11, 2012, Stevens and three other Americans were killed at a U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya, touching off perhaps the strangest political controversy in recent years. For reasons I'll never understand, many Republicans thought that the attack, or the way the Obama Administration handled it, would prove a hugely effective cudgel in the upcoming election. "It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions," Mitt Romney said, "but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks." Would anyone believe that Obama really sympathized with the attackers? Even if Susan Rice's controversial talking points were wrong, would Americans care? How many voters would hold an inability to stop an attack on Americans in Libya against Obama? Like many people, I figured anti-American radicals had launched the attack, guessed that Obama was as upset about it as anyone, and didn't blame him or Hillary Clinton for failing to secure a diplomatic outpost in an unstable country. I opposed Team Obama's reelection for totally unrelated reasons. With House Republicans and talented national-security journalists covering the story even after the election, and nothing to add myself, I tuned out every time I heard the word "Benghazi" on the news. But in May I briefly tuned back in, because it turned out that the Benghazi outpost wasn't a "diplomatic outpost." Why were so many journalists ignoring the fact that it was largely a CIA operation? The fact had been reported months before, I wrote: I don't know what happened in Benghazi. But knowing that the U.S. facility was a CIA post would seem to help explain certain mysteries. Why wasn't the Obama Administration truthful about what happened? There may have been multiple reasons. Surely one of them was that they wanted to hide the fact that a supposed diplomatic facility was really rife with spies. Why was the compound attacked? It seems likely that the presence of more than 20 CIA agents had something to do with it. Why were bureaucrats at the State Department so insistent on deflecting blame? Perhaps they're just typically averse to seeing their misjudgments revealed. But it also seems plausible that they conceived of Benghazi as a CIA operation, given the fact that it was largely a CIA operation, and felt the CIA bore responsibility for protecting their own assets, a rebuttal State Department officials cannot make publicly so long as we persist with the fiction that Benghazi was just a normal diplomatic facility with foreign service folks, a visiting ambassador, and no overwhelming spy presence. Did an American ambassador die in Benghazi in part because the Obama Administration, like all its executive branch predecessors, decided to use diplomatic cover to protect covert CIA assets? What, exactly, were those CIA agents doing in Benghazi? These are the sorts of questions neither establishment Republicans nor establishment Democrats have an interest in answering. I don't worry too much about the State Department and the CIA taking steps to keep their employees alive, and learning from instances in which they're killed. All the incentives are aligned. But the Obama Administration violated the War Powers Resolution with the way it took part in the ouster of Muammar Gaddafi, has acted in morally dubious ways abroad on many occasions, and has what I regard as an inflated sense of its ability to control foreign interventions. So I did worry about what exactly the CIA was doing in Libya. Eli Lake has done some characteristically great reporting on the subject. And Thursday, Jake Tapper's show* published this (emphasis added): CNN has uncovered exclusive new information about what is allegedly happening at the CIA, in the wake of the deadly Benghazi terror attack. Four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, were killed in the assault by armed militants last September 11 in eastern Libya. Sources now tell CNN dozens of people working for the CIA were on the ground that night, and that the agency is going to great lengths to make sure whatever it was doing, remains a secret. CNN has learned the CIA is involved in what one source calls an unprecedented attempt to keep the spy agency's Benghazi secrets from ever leaking out. 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. It is being described as pure intimidation, with the threat that any unauthorized CIA employee who leaks information could face the end of his or her career. In exclusive communications obtained by CNN, one insider writes, "You don't jeopardize yourself, you jeopardize your family as well." Another says, "You have no idea the amount of pressure being brought to bear on anyone with knowledge of this operation." The CIA denies the allegations: "The CIA has worked closely with its oversight committees to provide them with an extraordinary amount of information related to the attack on U.S. facilities in Benghazi," the statement said. "CIA employees are always free to speak to Congress if they want," the statement continued. Then, near the end of the CNN story: Speculation on Capitol Hill has included the possibility the U.S. agencies operating in Benghazi were secretly helping to move surface-to-air missiles out of Libya, through Turkey, and into the hands of Syrian rebels. To be clear, it isn't at all certain that the CIA was secretly funneling Libyan weapons to Syria, long before Congress "lifted its hurdles" on arming Syrian rebels. But if CNN's report is correct, the CIA is at minimum trying to hide something huge from Congress, something that CIA agents might otherwise want to reveal -- itself a reason for Congress to press hard for information. And if speculation about moving weapons is grounded in anything substantive, that would be an additional reason to investigate what the CIA is doing in Libya. Dozens of CIA agents were apparently on the ground in Benghazi, Libya last September. What I want to know is why. * Correction: This story originally attributed the report to Jake Tapper. While the report aired on Tapper's CNN program, Drew Griffin reported the story. We regret the error.
<iframe src="http://videos.mediaite.com/embed/player/?content_type=content_item&layout=&playlist_cid=&content=X3LZ7717Z3184BC8&widget_type_cid=svp&read_more=1" width="420" height="421" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" allowtransparency="true"></iframe> ------------------- Here CNN interviews a suspect on live TV that has never been interviewed by investigators.
It probably came from the head of the CIA. Duh. The President is seldom aware of all CIA operations. Even if he were aware of it, this is not out of the norm for the CIA. Our country, through its covert operations organizations, has for decades done things we think only other countries do. Have we really reached the point where transparency is so important that our covert operations can no longer be covert? That would put our country in peril and seems very odd coming from a political faction that constantly speaks of the importance of national security.
Atheist with an American accent on television, but not actually born here. Or maybe it's an insightful comment on health care and liberal Hollywood. Or maybe it's just weird and dumb imagery, like the naked, sword-wielding black guy on a ******* unicorn.
Or, like Bush, you could just nominate a half-dead, drive-time Fox News DJ to speak for your entire administration. I keep forgetting then remembering just how lazy and dumb that country-club hayseed was. Somebody needs to tell the kiddies on both sides of the aisle that graphic design does not equal information or insight.
There are plenty of things for which Bush deserves the blame. The fact that the only move you have when these issues are brought up is to parrot memes like that quoted just shows how hopelessly biased you are.
The Other Benghazi Scandal: Journalists Worry Covering The Attack Threatens White House Access by Noah Rothman http://www.mediaite.com/tv/the-othe...ring-the-attack-threatens-white-house-access/ As the one year anniversary of the deadly attack on an American consulate in Benghazi approaches, journalists have begun to take another look into the scandal surrounding the government’s response to that terrorist event. Last week, CNN aired two striking reports revealing that the Central Intelligence Agency had a large number of agents on the ground on the night of the attack and that a suspect in the attack has never been interviewed by investigators. Following these revelatory reports, which some in President Barack Obama’s administration believe represent a political threat, some CNN reporters now fear for their access to the White House. They are not alone. On July 31, CNN’s The Situation Room broadcast a portion of an interview conducted by reporter Arwa Damon with a suspect in the Benghazi attacks. The suspect revealed to Damon that no investigator has attempted to contact him regarding his involvement in that deadly assault. The following day, CNN’s Drew Griffin broke the news that more than 30 CIA agents were on the ground in Libya on the day of the attack and they are being pressured by the spy agency to not reveal to reporters or congressional investigators what they know of the events of that night. Some CNN reporters are reportedly fearful now that their access to the White House will be hampered following their probing into a story that members of the Obama administration would prefer remain uninvestigated. “Access is a very serious consideration when it comes to stories that could adversely impact a show, correspondent, or network’s relationship with the administration, a campaign, or any political leader,” one source with insider information told Mediaite. “I would suggest it’s not an accident that those who have been given a lot of access to the president have generally been AWOL when it comes to stories that might reflect poorly on him,” the source, who did not wish to be identified, continued. “It’s the name of the game. And it’s bad for everyone trying to do this job the right way.” Those reporters have reason to fear for their access to America’s executive branch. Some suspect that reporters who soft-pedal or underreport stories uncomfortable to the administration receive preferential access to White House officials. On September 12, 2012, less than 24-hours after the attack on the American consulate, President Obama sat down with CBS News reporter Steve Kroft for an in-depth interview on 60 Minutes. A critical portion of that interview, however, was omitted from broadcast only to be released online the Friday before the election. In that unaired portion of the interview, the president appeared to hedge about whether to declare that attack an act of terrorism. CBS’s decision to hold this portion of the interview became a focus of speculation because, during an explosive presidential debate against Mitt Romney, Obama declared with much more force that he had always regarded the Benghazi attack as a terrorist event. Some believe it was no coincidence that the president chose 60 Minutes to sit down with outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for an exit interview in January – one of several that she gave to every network news operation. Unlike in the exit interviews on the other networks, the 60 Minutes interview’s focus on Benghazi – coming just days after Clinton testified before Congress about her department’s actions leading up to and following the attack – was decidedly limited. “I want to talk about the hearings this week,” Kroft began. “You had a very long day. Also, how is your health?” He digressed. “As the New York Times put it, you accepted responsibility, but not blame,” Kroft asked in a follow up to the above grilling. “Do you feel guilty in any way, in– at a personal level? Do you blame yourself that you didn’t know or that you should have known?” Both Clinton’s and the president’s response to this question was clinical, lawyerly, and retrospective. Of course, they were able to take this tone because the nature of the question implied that the Benghazi story was a closed book. Today, though, the persistent uncovering of new details relating to the federal response to that attack shows definitively that the Benghazi story is not yet fully understood. CBS’ 60 Minutes is not the only venue which is protective of their access to the administration. Reporting by ABC News Chief White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl in May surrounding how the administration formed the talking points relating to the terrorist event in Benghazi prompted a flurry of reporting and commentary which suggested that the White House was fending off unwarranted attacks from their political opponents. Just days prior to Karl’s revelations, NBC News was granted a rare tour of the White House Situation Room as part of a retrospective report reflecting on the two year anniversary of the killing of Osama bin Laden. In the days that followed Karl’s revelations, NBC News’ most visible personalities were far more hands-off than they had been in the days that initially followed that deadly attack. “The whole issue of talking point, frankly, throughout this process, has been a sideshow,” Obama pointedly said of Karl’s story unveiling how the talking points were formed. “We dishonor [the fallen] when we, you know, we turn things like this into a political circus.” Appearing on Nightly News, the NBC News’ Chief White House Correspondent Chuck Todd reacted to Obama’s prickly statement by twice calling the president’s response to those revelations a “defiant” showing. NBC News’ Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent, Andrea Mitchell, observed that there is no doubt a “political undercurrent” to Republicans questioning Clinton’s culpability in those attacks. “After all, those Republicans are taking direct aim at Clinton, the country’s most popular Democrat and a potential presidential candidate,” she said of the revelations surrounding the talking points on NBC’s Today. “If you worry about access, you’re in the wrong business,” another insider with detailed information about how journalists and news networks react to reporting about Benghazi told Mediaite. “This shouldn’t be a consideration at all, but it is.” This source, who also declined to be identified, said that the institution of journalism would be better served if reporters were less protective of their sources within powerful institutions. “If we all raised proper objections, they couldn’t do it to anybody,” the source said of the White House’s efforts to block access to reporters who pursue stories they regard as inconvenient. “We’re really playing the government’s game.”
<object width="416" height="234" classid="clsid27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" id="ep_941"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><param name="movie" value="http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/apps/cvp/3.0/swf/cnn_embed_2x_container.swf?site=cnn&profile=desktop&context=embedwww&videoId=world/2013/08/20/lead-benghazi-latest-sec-kerry.cnn&contentId=world/2013/08/20/lead-benghazi-latest-sec-kerry.cnn" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#000000" /><embed src="http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/apps/cvp/3.0/swf/cnn_embed_2x_container.swf?site=cnn&profile=desktop&context=embedwww&videoId=world/2013/08/20/lead-benghazi-latest-sec-kerry.cnn&contentId=world/2013/08/20/lead-benghazi-latest-sec-kerry.cnn" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" bgcolor="#000000" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="416" wmode="transparent" height="234"></embed></object>
So to summarize this article, we have anonymous sources saying that journalists fear losing their access by being critical, despite the fact that several have confronted Obama and the administration and ... no one has lost their access. Is this accurate? How does this compare to the GOP actually locking out two news networks from the GOP Primary debates because they didn't like that their entertainment divisions were doing a documentary on a topic they didn't like, despite the fact that they don't even know the content of it?
You have a lot of patience. I think bobmarley's made it obvious that he's more about propaganda than about news, discussion and debate.
