Re: Petraeus Scandal – I don't get it

#777278

HMC Rich
Participant

Kerry won’t get swift boated this time.

JanS, I don’t like Kool-Aid and would not follow Jim Jones, but I will I will have a shot or two of Makers Mark.

When you guys “attack” I know I am on the right track making some uncomfortable.

OK, lets re-assess the situation because I have dug deeper to understand some nuances to this story.

From the beginning there were news reports that the Building in Benghazi was a “Consulate”. It was not. It was a US Mission. From what I can tell it was obviously not an Embassy nor a Consulate. It was something else not considered US Territory.

The President called it a US Mission. They obviously knew it was not “Sovereign US Territory”. This explains a couple of things. No Marines, Not fully funded.

A consulate or embassy would have been staffed with a better security force.

The administration and CIA were happy to have a storyline that did not show that this was basically a CIA outpost. It was a place to meet all kinds of people of various interests in the region such as some diplomats or persons of interest and even “freedom fighters” good and bad.

From what I have been able to tell, the CIA also used this place and possibly the Annex to deal with the Syrian conflict and or possible black ops and interrogation (but this is not clear).

Remember, Putin draws a line in the sand regarding Syria. If the US were to send above board help to the anti-Assad elements, Russia and the US could have a major problem. But covert action would be preferable to the US if this is partially about ending Assad’s reign. And today the President drew a line in the sand regarding chemical weapons in Syria.

The accounts of what happen had elements of truth but also had references to throw people off. The reason why the administration did not offer full transparency is most likely due to the fact that it was NOT a Consulate. It was a CIA outpost for the region which they did not want very much information to come out, and it showed that government agencies make mistakes.

The other issue is that the press in many cases called it a Consulate. This threw me off. Consulates are sovereign territory. This is why I was irritated about the security teams or lack of them.

Also, at first there were conflicting reports on how Ambassador Stevens died and how he was treated before he died.

Also, I am appalled that any of you thought race was part of this. I did not know what Susan Rice’s ethnicity was/is nor do I give a rats ass what color somebodies skin is. Grow up. It just shows how petty you are.

The bottom line is the Ambassador and three other Americans were killed. This was a CIA outpost of some sort. The talking points were changed to protect classified information. The CIA knew it was a planned terrorist attack but the administration and State Department did not want to actually say that and tried to deflect that information with a fake narrative about the video There are discrepancies on how much information was known ahead of time, but there had been warnings. Ambassador Stevens requests were turned down.

All in all a misinformation campaign with elements of truth to throw people off. A patriot gets caught in a personal personal problem which helps deflect blame. Basically all sides trying to cover up the real story and their butts so as not to get the full blame.

The best we can hope for is that the government can learn from this disaster and avoid future similar issues.