Last edited by iguanaman; 04-30-13 at 01:38 PM.
CIA Takes Heat for Role in Libya - WSJ.comThe CIA's secret role helps explain why security appeared inadequate at the U.S. diplomatic facility. State Department officials believed that responsibility was set to be shouldered in part by CIA personnel in the city through a series of secret agreements that even some officials in Washington didn't know about.
It also explains why the consulate was abandoned to looters for weeks afterward while U.S. efforts focused on securing the more important CIA quarters. Officials say it is unclear whether the militants knew about the CIA presence or stumbled upon the facility by following Americans there after the attack on the consulate
The CIA's secrecy affected how the U.S. government dealt with the families of the two slain contractors. Kate Quigley, Mr. Doherty's sister, said officials who visited her mother in Massachusetts identified themselves as State Department representatives. Officials said the State Department deferred to the CIA to contact the families and the "notification teams" included CIA officers.
Those who are in need to know already know plenty, as evidenced by the mountains of documents and testimony transcripts, etc.And right now...we know precisely jack and dammit about any of the details as to who what and why.
I wasn't attacking the article, I was attacking the ridiculous idea one should not question a possibly biased source.
A little worrisome, yes.And, yes. I made a fondue in my short typing that. Is that a bad thing?
What we need to know is WHY the process broke down and what can be done (if anything) to prevent in the future. The YouTube thing is nothing but a red herring. It was a red herring when presented by Democrats immediately after and it is a red herring now by Republicans to push a "cover-up" narrative. The YouTube discussion is a waste of time and the fact you're still talking about it is a waste of both of our time.
And we know why troops weren't sent in after we began received word of the assaults, we've already been told why. It was during the testimonies. So what we need to do is figure how the logistics to be better equipped for the future. That's what matters.
I'll make you a deal. The moment you quit thinking everything a Democrat/liberal does is wrong, evil and scummy, I'll consider taking advice from you. Until that time comes, you'll just be another incredibly biased poster in my eyes.Aren't you folks getting tired of trying to defend dirt bags and scum of the earth liars ?
The five great lies of the
We can be Godless and free. • “Social justice” through forced redistribution of wealth. • Silencing religious opinions counts as “diversity”. • Freedom without moral and personal responsibility. • Civilization can survive the intentional undermining of the family.
Report: Bush Had More 9/11 Warnings - The Daily BeastKurt Eichenwald writes that the Bush administration received more warnings about terrorist plots before 9/11 than the now-infamous memo “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the U.S.” Eichenwald writes that particular memo did not include a specific warning—but several others did. In May 2001, there was a warning of a terrorist operation planned by a “group presently in the United States,” and in June, a brief that called an attack “imminent.” Eichenwald writes the information “Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed."
You guys will sell out on just about any level.
The thing is you folks think of that as a positive, it just means that the train wrecks are much larger.