Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Administration knew three months before the November 2012 presidential election

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Administration knew three months before the November 2012 presidential election

    Documents released via court order are painting a picture that many suspected:

    “These documents are jaw-dropping. No wonder we had to file more FOIA lawsuits and wait over two years for them. If the American people had known the truth – that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and other top administration officials knew that the Benghazi attack was an al-Qaeda terrorist attack from the get-go – and yet lied and covered this fact up – Mitt Romney might very well be president. And why would the Obama administration continue to support the Muslim Brotherhood even after it knew it was tied to the Benghazi terrorist attack and to al Qaeda? These documents also point to connection between the collapse in Libya and the ISIS war – and confirm that the U.S. knew remarkable details about the transfer of arms from Benghazi to Syrian jihadists,” stated Tom Fitton, Judicial Watch president. “These documents show that the Benghazi cover-up has continued for years and is only unraveling through our independent lawsuits. The Benghazi scandal just got a whole lot worse for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.”

    http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-r...ys-in-advance/
    "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

  • #2
    Originally posted by Nichols View Post
    Documents released via court order are painting a picture that many suspected:

    “These documents are jaw-dropping. No wonder we had to file more FOIA lawsuits and wait over two years for them. If the American people had known the truth – that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and other top administration officials knew that the Benghazi attack was an al-Qaeda terrorist attack from the get-go – and yet lied and covered this fact up – Mitt Romney might very well be president. And why would the Obama administration continue to support the Muslim Brotherhood even after it knew it was tied to the Benghazi terrorist attack and to al Qaeda? These documents also point to connection between the collapse in Libya and the ISIS war – and confirm that the U.S. knew remarkable details about the transfer of arms from Benghazi to Syrian jihadists,” stated Tom Fitton, Judicial Watch president. “These documents show that the Benghazi cover-up has continued for years and is only unraveling through our independent lawsuits. The Benghazi scandal just got a whole lot worse for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.”

    http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-r...ys-in-advance/
    Typical Judical Watch. Go to the DoD report they obtained and read the big bold letters in the middle of page two.

    http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-cont...l-version2.pdf

    Post them to the thread.
    “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
    “To talk of many things:
    Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
    Of cabbages—and kings—
    And why the sea is boiling hot—
    And whether pigs have wings.”
    ― Lewis Carroll

    Comment


    • #3
      Not too surprising, I suppose. We live in an age of unprecedented ethical and moral corruption at all levels of our nation and society.
      Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
        Typical Judical Watch. Go to the DoD report they obtained and read the big bold letters in the middle of page two.

        http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-cont...l-version2.pdf

        Post them to the thread.
        More like typical CE......

        It is a combined Information Report, not finally evaluated.....you do understand that the intent is to give the Commander S/A on a developing situation. Nowhere in the report is a video mentioned, only a preplanned attack by a group that the President had been saying was on the run during his election campaign.

        Now if you would take a look at this document DTG 050839Z AUG 12:

        http://www.judicialwatch.org/documen...tate-14-812-2/

        page 3 paragraph D talks about Islamic State.
        "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Nichols View Post
          More like typical CE......

          It is a combined Information Report, not finally evaluated.....you do understand that the intent is to give the Commander S/A on a developing situation. Nowhere in the report is a video mentioned, only a preplanned attack by a group that the President had been saying was on the run during his election campaign.

          Now if you would take a look at this document DTG 050839Z AUG 12:

          http://www.judicialwatch.org/documen...tate-14-812-2/

          page 3 paragraph D talks about Islamic State.
          Yes I do understand it so do you, Judicial Watch, not so much. That is the point.

          It's been pointed out that NO intell source pointed to the video, we've known that for a long time. So that point is worthless.

          Back to the information paper, this would be one of dozens of reports on it. All looked at and evaluated against each other and combined into new memo's for higher ups.

          There is nothing new in this at all.
          “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
          “To talk of many things:
          Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
          Of cabbages—and kings—
          And why the sea is boiling hot—
          And whether pigs have wings.”
          ― Lewis Carroll

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Nichols View Post
            More like typical CE......

            It is a combined Information Report, not finally evaluated.....you do understand that the intent is to give the Commander S/A on a developing situation. Nowhere in the report is a video mentioned, only a preplanned attack by a group that the President had been saying was on the run during his election campaign.

            Now if you would take a look at this document DTG 050839Z AUG 12:

            http://www.judicialwatch.org/documen...tate-14-812-2/

            page 3 paragraph D talks about Islamic State.
            GOP House Intel Committee report:

            http://intelligence.house.gov/sites/...i%20Report.pdf

            Read the Exec summary. This email is not new info.
            “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
            “To talk of many things:
            Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
            Of cabbages—and kings—
            And why the sea is boiling hot—
            And whether pigs have wings.”
            ― Lewis Carroll

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
              GOP House Intel Committee report:

              http://intelligence.house.gov/sites/...i%20Report.pdf

              Read the Exec summary. This email is not new info.
              I read the executive summary and the rest of the report. The emails released this week were not part of the report nor was there any mention of the arms being delivered to ISIS.
              "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

              Comment


              • #8
                This is one of the issues that we have been arguing for years now. I went back and looked at old threads where we argued about the Obama Administration making a statement in the Rose Garden on Sept 12 where he vowed vengeance against those who attacked Benghazi and said no acts of terror would go unavenged. (I am paraphrasing here). We were aguing some of these points in late September, 2012.

                I also stated that there had been talk of arming Syrian rebels against Bashar al-Assad, which likely changed after the admin or CIA or someone realized that they were dealing with more than Syrian natives going against their ruler but that there were outside fighters coming in.
                Business Insider had reported that the CIA was shipping arms to Syrian rebels from Libya before the Benghazi attack in 2013.

                http://www.businessinsider.com/the-s...enghazi-2013-5

                So if we extrapolate we can assume that yes we were probably arming ISIS but just did not know it by that name at the time.

                I ran a search using search terms Paula Broadwell+arming rebels in Syria to find the above article. There are others but not as reputable as Business Insider.

                I think these issues are just being respun to make fresh issues. This is nothing new.

                Any of you can go back and read old threads by searching on Benghazi.

                By the way, Nichols, you were one of the ones that I argued with on some of these same issues.
                Homo homini lupus

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Jannie View Post
                  So if we extrapolate we can assume that yes we were probably arming ISIS but just did not know it by that name at the time.
                  The kicker about this Jannie is that the email from August calls out IS.
                  Page 3 paragraph 3 D & page 5 paragraph D 1:

                  http://www.judicialwatch.org/documen...tate-14-812-2/
                  "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I read it through twice. It warns of a sectarian war between the Sunnis and Shias. It is well known that we had been supporting the insurgents against the Al Bashir regime in Syria. So suddenly at some point we thought that we were supporting the wrong side, or that the war between the Sunnis and Shias was getting worse, or that there was going to be a religious war. It does warn that there was a possibility that the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) could declare an Islamic State.

                    I looked up Islamic State of Iraq and found that it was founded in 2006 in Iraq by the Sunnis. That would have been under the Bush Administration. Is ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) just an extension of that or a brand new organization? I think it is an extension of ISI since the leader of ISI, al-Baghdadi, was later the leader of ISIS until we took him out.


                    Source: http://www.ask.com/wiki/Islamic_Stat...apn&ap=ask.com

                    I do realize that the Obama administration stumbled around trying to figure out who to support in this religious war. So ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) is a Sunni organization supported by the Salafists or Saudis, the Muslim Brotherhood or the Egyptians and AQI or Al-Quada in Iraq and Al Nusra (an apparently Syrian group) who the Israelis are currently helping on their borders. So for some reason the Obama administration turned against the Sunni insurgents fighting against Al Bashir and decided to help the Shias, who are mainly the Iranians.

                    What was the reason they turned? I would love to know what was the reason we turned from supporting the Syrian insurgents. Did we make the wrong choice?

                    Apparently Israel has made its choice in that is helping the Sunni group Al Nusra. Of course the Saudis are supporting the Sunnis in the Yemen situation.

                    Should we have just supported the Sunnis and gone totally against the Shias and Iran and Russia and China? In a way, I almost wish we had because that might have cut off a lot of the China trade that I think has been so damaging to our industry.

                    It’s a bad situation that a Republican administration started up, a Democratic administration screwed up more and it will likely not be settled until we turn them all to green glass. But the English Empire fought this whole situation for over 100 years before WWII and then we took over. If we fade away the Russians or the Chinese will have to deal with it and I doubt that they will be any more successful that the Brits or us.

                    So whose side are you on: The Sunnis or the Shias? I think I like the mystics (Sufis) the best.

                    http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/id...wer/?page=full
                    Homo homini lupus

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Jannie View Post
                      I read it through twice. It warns of a sectarian war between the Sunnis and Shias. It is well known that we had been supporting the insurgents against the Al Bashir regime in Syria. So suddenly at some point we thought that we were supporting the wrong side, or that the war between the Sunnis and Shias was getting worse, or that there was going to be a religious war. It does warn that there was a possibility that the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) could declare an Islamic State.

                      I looked up Islamic State of Iraq and found that it was founded in 2006 in Iraq by the Sunnis. That would have been under the Bush Administration. Is ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) just an extension of that or a brand new organization? I think it is an extension of ISI since the leader of ISI, al-Baghdadi, was later the leader of ISIS until we took him out.


                      Source: http://www.ask.com/wiki/Islamic_Stat...apn&ap=ask.com

                      I do realize that the Obama administration stumbled around trying to figure out who to support in this religious war. So ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) is a Sunni organization supported by the Salafists or Saudis, the Muslim Brotherhood or the Egyptians and AQI or Al-Quada in Iraq and Al Nusra (an apparently Syrian group) who the Israelis are currently helping on their borders. So for some reason the Obama administration turned against the Sunni insurgents fighting against Al Bashir and decided to help the Shias, who are mainly the Iranians.

                      What was the reason they turned? I would love to know what was the reason we turned from supporting the Syrian insurgents. Did we make the wrong choice?

                      Apparently Israel has made its choice in that is helping the Sunni group Al Nusra. Of course the Saudis are supporting the Sunnis in the Yemen situation.

                      Should we have just supported the Sunnis and gone totally against the Shias and Iran and Russia and China? In a way, I almost wish we had because that might have cut off a lot of the China trade that I think has been so damaging to our industry.

                      It’s a bad situation that a Republican administration started up, a Democratic administration screwed up more and it will likely not be settled until we turn them all to green glass. But the English Empire fought this whole situation for over 100 years before WWII and then we took over. If we fade away the Russians or the Chinese will have to deal with it and I doubt that they will be any more successful that the Brits or us.

                      So whose side are you on: The Sunnis or the Shias? I think I like the mystics (Sufis) the best.

                      http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/id...wer/?page=full
                      Personally, I'd give the whole cesspool to the Kurds and be done with it. They've earned it.
                      Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Wait I have lost count, is this smoking gun six or seven?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Paddybhoy View Post
                          Wait I have lost count, is this smoking gun six or seven?
                          It isn't a smoking gun Patrick, it just a release of historical documents.
                          "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Paddybhoy View Post
                            Wait I have lost count, is this smoking gun six or seven?
                            I think it took 4000 US deaths to not find a mushroom cloud.
                            #occupyarmchairgeneral.
                            Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true. Demosthenes.
                            Against logic there is no armor like ignorance. Laurence J. Peter

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Crash View Post
                              I think it took 4000 US deaths to not find a mushroom cloud.
                              This has nothing to do with Iraqi war, this occurred after we pulled out.

                              Stop trying to derail the thread.
                              "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X