2013-03-26 Current US regime chart, CIA, Benghazi...

3) me (Joseph Zernik, Human Rights Alert (NGO) change)
10:11 AM (6 minutes ago)
Dear Mr Wolfgram:

You are mixing up fiction and reality. That's called delusion. In tyrannical regimes, it is often difficult to chart the power diagram. Relative to the former Soviet Union there was a special breed of specialists - Kremlinologists - who were dedicated to the study of such issues. Relative to the US today, I offer the chart below. jz

___________

Schematic Diagram of the current US Regime


Robert Mueller III

FBI Director - The Omnipotent

• Overstays the tenure of 10 years, Obama was unable to unseat him. 
• Publicized the investigation by FBI of President Elect Obama 
• Swiftly deposed Obama's appointed CIA Director 
• Decided in 2008 that there was no criminality in the US banking system, and no matter how many US Congress committees would show the opposite, prevents any prosecution of criminal bankers. 

Former CIA Director Petraeus; Current Direct Brennan

CIA Director - At the discretion of the Omnipotent

• In a uniquely elegant move, the Omnipotent eliminated Petraeus after one year in office, through an FBI agent, acting as a whistleblower against FBI!!! The first time in a couple of decades that a whistleblower got his mission accomplished, and suffered no retaliation... :) 
• The office of CIA Director is by now compromised through the change of four persons in office in less than three years. 

...
...



Obama, or whoever he is

President - At the mercy of the Omnipotent; teleprompter-fed, performs on cue.

• A president, who stays in office, while presenting to the people fraudulent personal identification documents is at the mercy of the FBI. 
• Is likely to have been operated by CIA at some point, but was never in a command position at CIA, unlike Bush I, who rose to the top of CIA, and then changed office to the White House. 

2) On Friday, May 24, 2013 11:13:28 PM UTC+3, John Wolfgram wrote:

While this is something to keep in mind, JZ, keep also in mind that the CIA, unlike NSA, is the president's own. That is why the president selects the head of the CIA each term. There is no loyalty anywhere like the loyalty of the CIA to the president. If he says "fall on the sword" they fall on the sword. While I'm not suggesting that it is so, it is possible that the whole scandal around Petraeus leading to his resignation was created to cover-up what really happened re Benghazi. He will take the blame as a good soldier should, and his resignation was set up to give him credibility when he does take the blame.
I'm not saying that is what happened. I'm saying that such manipulations of fact are within the traditional relationship of the CIA to the President, any president; like Johnson in the Gulf of Tonkin, like Nixon in Laos and Cambodia; like Bush II and WMDs; like Bush I, the former head of the CIA and Nixon and then Reagan. (Not withstanding his background, Bush II is the only president since Dwight who actually as president, put the good of the Nation before his own political interests.)
Wolf


1) Me; Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 12:09:37 -0700

Finally, some commonsense in this story... It was not an "embassy", it was not a "consulate", it was not a "diplomatic mission".  it was a CIA outpost, and therefore, a legitimate military target. The fact that the attackers managed to trap there a senior US officer - an ambassador - probably means that they had uniquely effective field information and ability to act at the required time.  jz

___________

EDITORIAL

The C.I.A.’s Part in Benghazi

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD

Published: May 22, 2013 264 Comments

The C.I.A.’s role needs to be examined to understand what happened and how to better protect Americans.Throughout months of Republican “investigation” into the tragedy in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11 last year, the Central Intelligence Agency has escaped the scrutiny and partisan bashing aimed at the State Department and the White House. But we now know that the C.I.A., and not the State Department or the White House, originated the talking points that Republicans (wrongly) insisted were proof of a scandal. It was more central to the American presence in Benghazi than the State Department, and more responsible for security there.

SOURCE:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/opinion/editorialboard.html