|Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: CNN's Jake Tapper has uncovered|
CNN's Jake Tapper has uncovered
Posted - 8/2/2013 11:48:38 AM | show profile | flag this post
a wealth of new information concerning Benghazi. While Tapper has not released all he's learned, others with apparent knowlenge are not as circumspect.
Tapper reports that there were as many as 35 CIA operatives in Benghazi on 9-11-2012...seven of whom were wounded, some seriously.
He also says that some CIA opereatives with knowledge of the Benghazi incident are being subjected to frequent...even monthly...polygraphs with the goal of intimidating them into silence concerning the operation.
(This comes on top of reports late last month of CIA personnel being forced to sign new non-disclosure agreements.)
Other sources are filling in the gaps: They say many of those who were in Benghazi or knew of the facts of the operation are being dispersed around the country and given new aliases...a la the US witness protection program.
It is clear that the CIA is going to great lentths to keep the details of its mission in Benghazi from ever becoming known to congress, the media or to the American public.
Still others say the effort being put in by the Obama administration to keep the details of Benghazi quiet are because at least part of the CIA's mission there was to transfer shoulder-fired missiles to the Syrian rebels through Turkey.
Perhaps the "annex" to the Benghazi consulate was the real center of the mission and the diplomatic activities were the coverup.
If any of this proves to be accurate..and I suspect it's spot on...Hillary's 2016 chances probably went right down the tubes and Obama's legacy is toast.
Posted - 8/2/2013 2:03:10 PM | show profile | flag this post
I thought we were done with this. Nothing came out of any investigations. An attack on a U.S. embassy in the Middle East. Imagine that! What's wrong, tired of trying to dig up something about the IRS scandal that didn't pan out? Keep looking, maybe you'll find something. Why wasn't anyone on the right interested in finding out why we went into Iraq? That sure got buried when you were in charge...
Posted - 8/2/2013 2:13:22 PM | show profile | flag this post
"Hillary's 2016 chances"
So a Romney landslide in 2016?
Or is Obamacare DOA!
Posted - 8/2/2013 2:46:08 PM | show profile | flag this post
actually, if tapper has the goods he appears to have..
there ARE a whole lot of Benghazi questions that need to be answered..
who were the "CIA operatives", and what were they doing there?..
i'm not sure issa's committee is the proper forum to do that..he's lost too much credibility to be effective anymore..but someone needs to do it..someone who's more interested in the truth than he or she is in getting their face on camera as much as possible..
Posted - 8/2/2013 3:53:18 PM | show profile | flag this post
Benghazi! Benghazi! IRS!, er, I mean, Benghazi!!
Hillary Stopped! Obama legacy Toast! Romney in a landslide!!
Jeez cruise get a life. Or a new life with a new script. So the CIA is keeping secrets. Even from Congressmen who can't keep their friggin mouths shut. After Manning and Snowden the Agency is so paranoid they're reminding their own (with additonal polygraphs if necessary) to keep their mouths shut. This is the CIA people, not CNN.
Repub Rep Trey Gowdy was on Fox last night complaining he hasn't gotten all the details from the CIA yet. Tappers article cited only ONE Congressman; another Repub named Wolf. NIETHER of these guys are on the Intelligence Committee, yet they can't figure out why they don't know everything. (Insert 'Duh' here)
What's particularly frustating for the Agency is when they DO volunteer to brief people on subjects like this--the attendenace is less than spectacular. The WH invited every Repub on both Intell Committees--plus leadership--to closed door briefings on Benghazi earlier this year. Half of them showed up. Boehner--the friggin SPEAKER--sent staff. McCain famously didn't attend a briefing on Benghazi--because--wait for it--he was doing a live Fx interview on how he wasn't being briefed. (Insert head-shake here)
I'd also point out that even though I've been kind of a fan of Tapper over the years, this piece was perforated with 'who?' Go thru it like I did: (I'm skipping the quote marks)
CNN has uncovered exclusive new information... what is allegedly happening...Was there a political cover up...Sources now tell CNN remains a secret....CNN has learned...according to a source...according to sources...In exclusive communications obtained by CNN, one insider...A source now tells CNN...While it still not known....Speculation on Capitol Hill...The CIA would not comment...(Thanks Jake for all that attribution)
BTW--an ACTUAL National Security story is the big news today: "US issues worldwide travel alert due to unspecified al Qaeda threat"
"The warning came as officials announced that the United States is working with foreign spy agencies to try to find out more about the target of a suspected al Qaeda-linked plot to attack any of the 284 American diplomatic posts around the world, according to U.S. officials."
WELL OMG Why don't we have EXACT DETAILS!! I want to know the names of those spies involved!! It's a SCANDAL donchaknow.
Posted - 8/2/2013 3:54:04 PM | show profile | flag this post
It's been known for quite a while...
that the whole Benghazi firefight involved a CIA operation.
The real question is, what was the Ambassador doing there? That raises the question as to whether he was really a professional diplomat or was CIA working undercover as a diplomat (something that happens at just about every embassy, but never at that high a rank). And that goes a long way in explaining why the CIA altered the talking points and why they are still quite mum on everything that happened in Benghazi.
The CIA was in the region trying to round up anti-aircraft missiles from Libyan rebels who were unfriendly to the U.S. and had employed pro-U.S. Libyan rebels to do it.
It's been pretty clear this was a para-military firefight.
It makes perfect sense to hide the identities of the CIA operatives involved to keep them from being targets for terrorists here at home or abroad. We did the same thing for key members of the crew of USS Vincenes after the Iranian airliner shootdown in the 1980s, and it's been standard practice to do the same for pilots -- of both manned and unmanned aircraft -- involved in strikes on key terrorist leaders. That goes all the way back to the crews of the FB-111s that hit Libya back in the 80s as well.
I do find it interesting that the right wing still insists that the CIA divulge details of their operation in Benghazi -- but consider Manning and Snowden a traitor for revealing similarly secret details.
What's the difference? It's all espionage -- and the cons are politically motivated to make it happen.
Posted - 8/2/2013 3:59:32 PM | show profile | flag this post
I almost fell off my chair!
A REASONED response from one of the liberal peanut gallery.
What needs to happen is an independent counsel...TRULY independent...not like the clown who indicted Scooter Libby when he knew from Day One...no, MINUTE One...that it was Richard Armitage who revealed Valerie Plane's status as a CIA op.
In fact, ALL of the Obama scandals need independent investigation...NSA, DOJ, FBI, BATFE and IRS along with Benghazi.
While Issa's and Camp's committees have both the authority and responsibility to do these investigations, there is the appearance of taint...and it's NOT due to the members doing their jobs. It is mainly due to the Obama administration's stonewalling, refusal to turn over subpoenaed documents, etc., and then bawling through a sympathetic media to the American public.
Posted - 8/2/2013 5:08:44 PM | show profile | flag this post
Of course it was "A REASONED response"
etaoin is very reasonable guy. You can be too cruise when you try.
I honestly don't know about an independent counsel. I think it's definitely worth looking into though.
(Bringing up Scooter was NOT a good idea btw. Libby was NOT convicted for 'outing' Plame. "the jury convicted Libby on four of the five counts in the indictment (one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury, and one count of making false statements) and acquitted on the second count of making false statements" (Wiki) In other words he was convicted of LYING and then trying to cover it up.
And I think it's telling that you even hint at defending him---but anyone involved in Benghazi should be crucified)
Anyway...I think any sane person would agree that appointing a "Special Counsel" for every thing the Minority party doesn't like or agree with would be a bad idea. (Regardless of who is in the WH) Especially if it can be handled thru Congressional oversight. (That would include the fake scandals like the NSA and IRS, because everyone was briefed, and the agencies were only doing their jobs)
But Benghazi? Ok. I can see that. From as much as an objective viewpoint as I can get, I can see that. Here's the problem though--this whole story is bathed in, cloaked in, surrounded by, National Security. A special Prosecutor investigating say, 'Vote Fraud' can release everything they find...You cannot do that with an investigation into the workings of the CIA can you? Whatever the Indep Counsel finds would only be released to a small select group (not counting leaks)...and considering the rampant paranoia here and elsewhere I don't see how that will satisfy everyone.
Just my two cents. Good topic though.
Posted - 8/2/2013 5:10:13 PM | show profile | flag this post
It WASN'T etwinkie I was talking about
Reasoned??? Not him...not ever.
Posted - 8/2/2013 5:24:05 PM | show profile | flag this post
And I can't fathom
why you'd characterize the IRS as a "fake" scandal. It goes on and on, getting curiouser and curiouser every day, to the point where the Oversight and Government Reform committee felt it necessary to issue a subpoena to Treasury Secretary Jack Lew for unresponsiveness to the committee's questions.
That and Dan Werfel's unilateral reduction of the search terms (71 of them) requested by the committee. He turned over the results of 12 terms, saying the others were "generic" and citing two examples. OK, Mr. Werfel...that leaves 69...fifty-seven to which the IRS has not responded.
Posted - 8/2/2013 6:29:08 PM | show profile | flag this post
Of course it's a fake scandal
And everyone knows it. Hey, I'm no huge fan of the IRS either--because they ask me for money--but that doesn't mean I don't recognize they 'do what they have to do'
You're applying for tax-free status because you're NOT political...and your sole purpose is to tell people Obama is a Commie Socialist. Seriously? Karl Rov'es group is NOT political??? Cut me a break. It's already in the OTHER thread: Testimony: "That's shown by the fact that only 70 of the 300 organizations were tea party organizations"
In regards to your "As for the "none were denied" aspect of your disingenuous response, there were a lot of conservative groups..." There's your 'de facto' lie...
"Some of the flagged groups did have their tax-exempt status delayed or did face some additional scrutiny, but not a single group has been denied tax-exempt status. A May 14 draft report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration found that NONE of the 296 questionable applicants had been denied, “For the 296 potential political cases we reviewed, as of December 17, 2012, 108 applications had been approved, 28 were withdrawn by the applicant, none had been denied...SAVE ONE...the only known 501(c)(4) applicant to recently have its status denied happens to be a progressive group: the Maine chapter of Emerge America, which trains Democratic women to run for office"
So shut up about the targeting bullshit already. It's a fake scandal.
"to the point where the Oversight and Government Reform committee felt it necessary to issue a subpoena to Treasury Secretary Jack Lew for unresponsiveness to the committee's questions."
OH SO WHAT. It's such a scandal Repubs are issuing subpoenas?!?!? Oh then it's a frickin Constitutional Crisis. Why didn't you say so? When's the impeachment?? I remember when the Repubs subpoened Clintons Christmas Card list. Their damn Christmas Card list. And had the Chief of Staff read it to them. So pardon me if I don't all blue in the face.
Posted - 8/2/2013 6:39:22 PM | show profile | flag this post
IRS as a "fake" scandal?
Everyone knows the IRS scandal is linked to Benghazi as a way of getting Edward Snowden to expose the NSA data mining in an effort to cover up one of the biggest Obama scandals in HISTORY!
His effort to find water on the moon and fluoridate it!!
That's what Obama-CARE is all about. Can't you see the link? Connect the dots as cruiser has and let your mind run as free as a homeless man who hears the voices.
Posted - 8/2/2013 8:01:36 PM | show profile | flag this post
You can try with all your might to
minimize or trivialize this...as the administration and the Dem-friendly media are doing...but it's not going to go away.
Posted - 8/2/2013 8:55:49 PM | show profile | flag this post
minimize or trivialize this
It's just too bad the facts don't support your theory.
Other than that, it's a good theory.
Posted - 8/3/2013 8:35:26 PM | show profile | flag this post
It's becoming pretty clear that
the diplomatic operation in Benghazi wae a cover for CIA weapons-running out of the annex. And it's not a scandal? Bullsh*t.
What it is is a huge embarrassment to the president, the then-secretary of state and others including the former ambassador to the UN.
And if the left wingers on here think it was wrong when some members of the Reagan administration sold arms to Iran to help support the Contras in Nicaragua THEN IT'S JUST AS WRONG NOW.
One cannot...CANNOT...justify bad behavior with other bad behavior.
This desperately needs the attention of an independent prosecutor who will delve into and expose all the rotten parts DESPITE the embarrassment it will cause to Obama, Hillary and others...and the damage it might do to future political aspirations.
Posted - 8/3/2013 8:58:42 PM | show profile | flag this post
frankly, if CIA weapons-running is what it was..
I don't have a problem with that at all..if we're going to aid the syrian rebels, i'd just as soon we do it in the open.. bug whatever gets the job done..
I regret the deaths of the four men more than I can say..but i'm not that upset about the weapons..
of course, i'm not a republican...
Posted - 8/4/2013 9:03:04 AM | show profile | flag this post
Stop it, cruster...
It's just too damn funny...!
Posted - 8/4/2013 3:55:27 PM | show profile | flag this post
*** One cannot...CANNOT...justify bad behavior with other bad behavior. ***
So THAT's why cruiser gets combative and calls other posters "idiot," "moron," "stupid," "dearie," "lefties" and all those other silly little names for disagreeing with him: He's merely preventing anyone from committing the bad behavior of counter-posting to his original bad behavior of posting incomplete information and biased BS.
And, hey, if "Jake Tapper has uncovered" -- well, he's not total eye candy, but he's not bad-looking either. Let him uncover.
Posted - 8/5/2013 10:16:56 AM | show profile | flag this post
Benghazi and the IRS nontroversies...
ARE phoney scandals, cruzo.
They are as invalid as the whole birth certificate nonsense,
These efforts by Issa to drum up a real scandal have hurt the GOP's credibility and shifted them from being "The Party of NO!" to "The Party that Cries "Wolf!'"
Posted - 8/5/2013 10:57:04 AM | show profile | flag this post
The left wing is trying hard
to follow Obama's lead and ignore Benghazi...hoping against hope it will go away. It won't.
Benghazi IS a scandal and more of it is revealed all the time despite the administration's attempts to intimidate the actors into silence with their forced non-disclosure agreements, their monthly polygraph exams, their witness-protection-like relocations and identity changes, etc.
As all presidents have discovered sooner or later, the truth WILL come out. And the old bromide is spot on: it's not the crime, it's the coverup.
Posted - 8/5/2013 1:54:16 PM | show profile | flag this post
Same old song
Another failure by the news media to dig into a story that negatively affects the liberal establishment.
We may be discussing this here, in this forum, but the story has all but disappeared from newscasts. Sad commentary about modern journalism as a whole.
Posted - 8/5/2013 4:43:06 PM | show profile | flag this post
If it were important, people would care about it. They make their own choices. The media don't control them.
If only a small handful are outraged, then maybe it's not what you're convinced that it is.
Posted - 8/5/2013 8:05:47 PM | show profile | flag this post
Only a small handful are politically knowledgeable
and aware of the ramifications of Benghazi and the other Obama scandals. The rest are what are termed "low information voters," most of whom are unduly influenced by a complicit media.
Posted - 8/5/2013 8:15:30 PM | show profile | flag this post
"low information voters,"
Rush Limbaugh fans. Hannity watchers. Drudge readers.
cruiser, newscred, con/puzo.