Ex-CIA Agent Claims Obama Killed Breitbart and Clancy

[uberpeck]

Governments never murder for motive, especially ours; they just fix problems through legislative actions while in session.

 

[churchmouse]

Out of pure curiosity (seriously)... do you think an operation like this would be difficult for the CIA to pull off... or would it likely be a walk in the park?

I mean... I look at operational plans like Operation Northwoods which were very involved and very complicated, and back in the day they thought they could pull that off... I'd have to think that some 50 years later with the resources and technology these guys have access to today that killing a man would require very little effort.

(again... not saying they did... just that its not beyond their capability or beyond the realm of possibility)

If you think about this....doing this on our own soil would be so easy to pull off with minimal resources and man power.

Not saying they did....just saying it would be way to easy for a small team with a few weeks to observe and gear up to pull this off un-observed.

We are all way to easy going in the land of the free. SA is low on the list. Did AB have a security staff or was he just like the rest of us and doing his daily routine un-aware he could be or was a target.

In this age of cover ups and deceit how hard would it be to buy off or pressure the med. examiner into falsifying autopsy reports. Happens every day I am sure. Hell, they own judges. This would be easy.

 

[111NMC]

Don't know what Clancy's medical conditions was, but Breitbart's friend and senior editor told Greg Garrison the next morning that he had known medical problems. I'll bet on natural causes over murder.

Well, this isnt Vegas, so you can keep your chips but.....
Would you at least agree that it would have been easy for a professional to take him out?
or that there were probably those in the circles of power that would breath easier when he was out of the way?
Maybe he did die of natural causes, but you have to admit that his passing was a huge bonus for a lot of people,
and the timing was freaking perfect.


almost as if it was planned..............[/tinfoil hat smiley]

 

[111NMC]

Out of pure curiosity (seriously)... do you think an operation like this would be difficult for the CIA to pull off... or would it likely be a walk in the park?

I mean... I look at operational plans like Operation Northwoods which were very involved and very complicated, and back in the day they thought they could pull that off... I'd have to think that some 50 years later with the resources and technology these guys have access to today that killing a man would require very little effort.

(again... not saying they did... just that its not beyond their capability or beyond the realm of possibility)

Obviously the CIA could pull this off.
All day long, and twice on sunday.
But it wouldnt be the CIA.
At least, they didnt pull the trigger (so to speak)
They may have done the initial workup. maybe as a practice scenario.
And then it got handed off to someone else, who did a little more on it, UNOFFICIALLY/TRAINING PURPOSES ONLY
Then the workup was misplaced.
And some time passed.
Then one day a bunch of people woke up to the news that Andrew Breitbart was dead of "Natural Causes"
and there was a collective crapping of the pants, because they recognized their participation in that "Training OP"
and "WOW, that looks an awful lot like the scenario I came up with. Holy crap, I better delete these files."


But yeah, you are right. It was probably natural causes.
Occams razor and all that

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Well, this isnt Vegas, so you can keep your chips but.....
Would you at least agree that it would have been easy for a professional to take him out?
or that there were probably those in the circles of power that would breath easier when he was out of the way?
Maybe he did die of natural causes, but you have to admit that his passing was a huge bonus for a lot of people,
and the timing was freaking perfect.


almost as if it was planned..............[/tinfoil hat smiley]

It would be relatively easy for a "professional" to take ANYONE out. By that logic, Julian Assange and that Snowden fellow should have been pushing daisies months ago. They have certainly embarrassed this Administration more than Breitbart did. And Tom Clancy would have been unlikely to "leak" embarrassing secrets in public - he wasn't that type of person. None of this belies the theory that these two were "taken out" by assassination, but there isn't a shred of "proof" - certainly nothing like the circumstances surrounding the death of Vince Foster.

So, while the theory allows for assassination, I don't think there are any uncontrovertible facts to support that conclusion; certainly not the allegations of a self-confessed "Ex-CIA Agent".

 

[lucky4034]

Maybe they are getting better at their job

 

[111NMC]

It would be relatively easy for a "professional" to take ANYONE out. By that logic, Julian Assange and that Snowden fellow should have been pushing daisies months ago. They have certainly embarrassed this Administration more than Breitbart did. And Tom Clancy would have been unlikely to "leak" embarrassing secrets in public - he wasn't that type of person. None of this belies the theory that these two were "taken out" by assassination, but there isn't a shred of "proof" - certainly nothing like the circumstances surrounding the death of Vince Foster.

So, while the theory allows for assassination, I don't think there are any uncontrovertible facts to support that conclusion; certainly not the allegations of a self-confessed "Ex-CIA Agent".

Yeah but...
Assange and Snowden only embarrased the adminstration, meaning that it would have been payback to take them down.

Breitbart had the ability to lead a revolution. there is more incentive to take him down.

Breitbart and Clancy are seperate cases, so dont tie them together. I dont care what this guy said, they are not related.
Clancy died because he was old. OK, he is dead. move on.
Breitbart was a revolutionary, and could have led a revolt, right? Do you agree with that?? He was someone who could have shaped the current thought patterns and there would have been a benefit in having him neutralized, correct?
Do you agree that he could have been viewed as a threat?
DO you agree that he could have been viewed as a road block?

 

[Smokepole]

It would be relatively easy for a "professional" to take ANYONE out. By that logic, Julian Assange and that Snowden fellow should have been pushing daisies months ago. They have certainly embarrassed this Administration more than Breitbart did. And Tom Clancy would have been unlikely to "leak" embarrassing secrets in public - he wasn't that type of person. None of this belies the theory that these two were "taken out" by assassination, but there isn't a shred of "proof" - certainly nothing like the circumstances surrounding the death of Vince Foster.

So, while the theory allows for assassination, I don't think there are any uncontrovertible facts to support that conclusion; certainly not the allegations of a self-confessed "Ex-CIA Agent".

That has been a significant piece of this discussion, that it could be done w/no evidence and noone would be the wiser. Except for the "tinfoil hat" crowd.

 

[model67a]

Potassium Chloride injection. Stops the heart. indicating a heart attack and cannot be detected by an autopsy.