Friday, August 02, 2013

well, someone noticed

This was obvious within 24 hours after Benghazi, because Wired revealed Sean Smith's warning that professionals were stalking the office, and a Reuter's Africa reporter quoted a local militia saying more Americans were there than expected, and that the mortar use suggested a pre planned attack.

a week or two later, when it was revealed that the ambassador was meeting with a Turkish embassy employee, anyone who had even the vaguist knowledge of Middle Eastern politics would know that this might be the "smoking gun" on why there was an attack: Turkey at the time was smuggling weapons to the Syrian rebels.

All of these things were open secrets, easy for a grandmother in the rural Philippines to figure out, but the US press swallowed the "anti Muslim film" meme without problems.

So today's Benghazi "revealations", for those of you who still believe President Obama:


On the morning of September 11, 2012, Christopher Stevens and his aide, Sean Smith, were meeting at the Benghazi headquarters with Turkish Consul General, Ali Sait Akin, and his associates. Turkey was the staging ground through which the Syria-bound guns and rebels were smuggled. Thirty-four additional Syrian opposition supporters were also in attendance. Shortly after Mr. Akin & Co. made a substantial “financial contribution” and left, the compound was struck by a highly-organized assault by Hezbollah fighters. The eyes of the Middle East, as well as any online observer of Libyan and Middle Eastern press, watched the brazen attack on Benghazi…

but don't worry: The president is making sure that the story doesn't get out:
From the CNN Story:
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."
 Why the secrecy? because it was an intelligence plan, of course.

Yet the question in a democracy is: shouldn't Americans be aware when the CIA is helping one side against the other?

And in an election year, shouldn't this have been part of the discussion (even though Romney would have supported the President, his left wing base might have been angered).

Which might explains the Martin overload: Trying to keep the extreme left distracted from the fact that Obama is a worse war monger than Bush.

So who do you back in Syria? Alqaeda or Iran? Right now, if Iran wins, they won't kill all the Christians/Shiites/Alawites, but if Alqaeda wins they could trigger a Shiite Sunni war...Russia is opposing the US there because they traditionally support their fellow Orthodox Christians...

and is this coming to light now because Snowden's helpers are planning to release this data, and better CNN than the UKGuardian?

No comments: