Democrats SUCK!!

[Exterminator]

[me]

This is from CNN....hum....
http://www.ijreview.com/2013/08/70066-cnn-bombshell-cia-personnel-in-benghazi-silenced-with-threats-to-their-families-by-obama-regime/

[Henry Hawk]

 

CNN has learned the CIA is involved in what one source calls an unprecedented attempt to keep the spy agency's Benghazi secrets from ever leaking out.

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."

[Exterminator]

So what's your point?

[Bo D]

So what's your point?

Exactly! I thought it was the CIA's job to protect their secrets. And regardless, whatever the sensationalist headlines suggest, this has nothing to do with any alleged coverup of the attack there.

[me]

Exactly! I thought it was the CIA's job to protect their secrets. And regardless, whatever the sensationalist headlines suggest, this has nothing to do with any alleged coverup of the attack there.

Kyle Becker

    Kyle Becker
    On August 1, 2013
    https://twitter.com/kylenbecker

CNN has released yet another bombshell in the ongoing Benghazi scandal, and it is sure to shock those who haven't been paying attention. Prepare for a window into the "transparent" Obama administration.

According to CNN's Jake Tapper, the Obama administration is threatening CIA operatives who were on the ground during the deadly terrorist attack in Benghazi to keep them silent:

    CNN has learned the CIA is involved in what one source calls an unprecedented attempt to keep the spy agency's Benghazi secrets from ever leaking out.

    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."

This should quell all naysaying that Benghazi is a "phony scandal" and "there is no cover-up." Possible links to the Benghazi story that the Obama administration might want to cover-up are the arms shipments to al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists in the February 17th Martyr's Brigade and potential weapons smuggling to al Qaeda-connected rebels in Syria through the Turkish consul.

The CIA operatives' story is similar to that given by the number two diplomat in Benghazi, Libya — Gregory Hicks. Under oath, Hicks testified that he was told by the State Department not to discuss Benghazi with House Republicans and then was demoted when he did.
http://www.ijreview.com/2013/08/70066-cnn-bombshell-cia-personnel-in-benghazi-silenced-with-threats-to-their-families-by-obama-regime/

[Bo D]

keep the spy agency's Benghazi secrets from ever leaking out.


some CIA operatives involved in the agency's missions in Libya, have been subjected to frequent, even monthly polygraph examinations

Funny that everything you have bolded is nothing but pure speculation by some unknown blogger. He took a CNN report and totally misrepresented it. And you fell for it.

[me]

Funny that everything you have bolded is nothing but pure speculation by some unknown blogger. He took a CNN report and totally misrepresented it. And you fell for it.

How was it misrepresented? 

[Exterminator]

Funny that everything you have bolded is nothing but pure speculation by some unknown blogger. He took a CNN report and totally misrepresented it. And you fell for it.

Exactly!  I recognized two sentences into the article they linked to that it was a few sentences taken out of context and spun to mean something that the original CNN article didn't so I did what any person with critical thinking skills would do...I read the actual CNN article instead.  The author of this piece doesn't want you to do that...I couldn't find anywhere where he had provided a link to the article he cited...how convenient.

The problem with our public discourse is that people like Henry and me will read this and, because it fits the narrative they want to believe, will go no further in ascertaining how much of it is true or relevant.

[me]

Well, I guess it's time for CNN to join the ranks of Fox in the administrations eyes then huh?  How blind can you sheeple be anyway?

[Exterminator]

Well, I guess it's time for CNN to join the ranks of Fox in the administrations eyes then huh?  How blind can you sheeple be anyway?

Whooooooosh!

[Henry Hawk]

Funny that everything you have bolded is nothing but pure speculation by some unknown blogger. He took a CNN report and totally misrepresented it. And you fell for it.

the point is this:

None of this diminishes questions about how the White House, just weeks before the presidential election, seemed to downplay that this was a terrorist attack. Or the State Department's initial refusal to acknowledge that it had not provided adequate security for its own officials there.

But the role of the CIA, its clear intelligence failure before the attack, and - as it continued to push the theory of the anti-Muslim video - after the attack, bears more scrutiny as well.

[Bo D]

the point is this:

None of this diminishes questions about how the White House, just weeks before the presidential election, seemed to downplay that this was a terrorist attack. Or the State Department's initial refusal to acknowledge that it had not provided adequate security for its own officials there.

But the role of the CIA, its clear intelligence failure before the attack, and - as it continued to push the theory of the anti-Muslim video - after the attack, bears more scrutiny as well.

No ... the point is that this has nothing to do with that.

[Henry Hawk]

No ... the point is that this has nothing to do with that.

You know this for a fact?

[Bo D]

You know this for a fact?

Yes! I do!