| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Pulitzer-Prize Winning Reporter Sy Hersh: Benghazi Is a HUGE Scandal ... Really. |
| 2014-04-16 |
| ...but, at this point, what difference does it make? |
| Posted by:Uncle Phester |
| #5 The only thing I know about Benghazi is that there's a MASSIVE cover-up about something. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2014-04-16 16:57 |
| #4 Many have speculated that – if normal security measures weren’t taken to protect the Benghazi consulate or to rescue ambassador Stevens – it was because the CIA was trying to keep an extremely low profile to protect its cover of being a normal State Department operation. So we would normally move heaven and earth to save a CIA operation but would leave an embassy to the wolves so as not to call attention to the CIA operation? The argument is a non sequitur. |
| Posted by: Squinty 2014-04-16 15:59 |
| #3 Permanent Party Propaganda Ministry Sounds like a job for [I used to be a Congressman] and future "memory hole" Minister of Information Mike Rogers. Hey, if Bill O'Reilly can make $7m per year, think wat I can do with my connections. O'Reilly is only making money on one end, I can make shi*loads of money on BOTH ends. Lean forward attentively, never smile, and always remind the audience of my former FBI employment. What could go wrong. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2014-04-16 09:15 |
| #2 What makes it 'huge' is the actions by the Permanent Party Propaganda Ministry to send it all down the memory hole. By their inaction they've removed all pretense of being anything but a party machine. Mouth of Sauron, indeed. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2014-04-16 08:56 |
| #1 Was CIA Chief David Petraeus’ Firing Due to Benghazi? CIA boss David Petraeus suddenly resigned, admitting to an affair. But Petraeus was scheduled to testify under oath the next week before power House and Senate committees regarding the Benghazi consulate. Many speculate that it wasn’t an affair – but the desire to avoid testifying on Benghazi – which was the real reason for Petraeus’ sudden resignation. BS flag down on the above para. I cannot imagine Petreaus voluntarily 'taking one for the team' under such a sordid, scheme. I DO think he could have been honey trapped by the regime however. The balance of the article is entirely plausible and has been cussed and discussed here at great length. In fact, the British [MI6] piece in para 2, ie, the potential Aegis LLC and Blue Mountain Security connection was discussed just last week. ‘The consulate’s only mission was to provide cover for the moving of arms,’ the former intelligence official, who has read the annex, said. ‘It had no real political role.’ If the consulate had a mission, an actual diplomatic role, or the regime had even a passing interest in 'find the real killers,' why wasn't it re-opened and re-staffed? Thanks for posting UP. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2014-04-16 03:20 |