A third email, also marked SBU and sent at 6:07 p.m. Washington time, carried the subject line: "Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack."
The message reported: "Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli."
Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.
Not good for Obama, Biden and Rice. Only one coming out of this not damage is Hillary.
Since you still seemingly fail to understand the whole point of not immediately leaping at calling it a terrorist attack (an "act of terror", if you will...), I probably should not post this, but...
What you seem to fail to grasp is that groups (and individuals for that matter) claim responsibility for things that they did not do all the time.
It would have been downright irresponsible of the government to make the statement that the group "Ansar al-Sharia" was responsible for the attack in Tripoli without at least a cursory factchecking is an exercise in stupidity and irresponsibility.
Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.
Not good for Obama, Biden and Rice. Only one coming out of this not damage is Hillary.
Yup... totally argree with that.
Hillary is looking like the only adult in this situation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mannahnin wrote: Might want to make the tone a bit more polite, K.
Mannahnin wrote: Might want to make the tone a bit more polite, K.
True enough.
But it's so ridiculous that this witch hunt to lay the blame square at the feet of the Obama administration continues.
Bad things happen.
If we took every single threat posted by every single terror group(note: I'm not saying "terror groups" and meaning simply the Middle East. I'm also referring to Sendero Luminoso, the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, the Revolutionary Peoples' Liberation Party/Front [DHKP/C], and Revolutionary Nuclei) out there seriously to the point of beefing up security at embassies, we would be having armored columns sitting outside of every embassy in the Middle East, Europe, and South America.
This is no different than the people who tried to lay the blame for the September 11th attacks at the feet of George Bush or Bill Clinton. It's an irresponsible hatchet job which is nothing but tin-foil hat shenanigans.
Kanluwen wrote: Since you still seemingly fail to understand the whole point of not immediately leaping at calling it a terrorist attack (an "act of terror", if you will...), I probably should not post this, but...
What you seem to fail to grasp is that groups (and individuals for that matter) claim responsibility for things that they did not do all the time.
It would have been downright irresponsible of the government to make the statement that the group "Ansar al-Sharia" was responsible for the attack in Tripoli without at least a cursory factchecking is an exercise in stupidity and irresponsibility.
I do understand this sentiment... really, I do...
But, it looks to me that the way the whole initial response was from a political standpoint of "how do I deal with this so that this doesn't look politically bad".
Hence, IMO, the whole strategy of blaming these attacks on that youtube director of that anti-muslin movie.
That's what it looks like... and it just rubs me raw.
Then we find out that security was poorly planned AND repeated request for more security were not implemented, whether from outright denials or incompentence.
The the thing that threw me over the top... is that right after that morning Rose Garden speech, he jumped on the plane to attend a fundraising party with Beyonce and Jay-Z that day. Talk about priorities....
Mannahnin wrote: Might want to make the tone a bit more polite, K.
True enough.
But it's so ridiculous that this witch hunt to lay the blame square at the feet of the Obama administration continues.
Why shouldn't he be held accountable? HE'S. THE. BOSS.
Bad things happen.
If we took every single threat posted by every single terror group(note: I'm not saying "terror groups" and meaning simply the Middle East. I'm also referring to Sendero Luminoso, the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, the Revolutionary Peoples' Liberation Party/Front [DHKP/C], and Revolutionary Nuclei) out there seriously to the point of beefing up security at embassies, we would be having armored columns sitting outside of every embassy in the Middle East, Europe, and South America.
Yeah.. bad things do happen...
But an American Diplomat and 3 security operators was assassinated!
So... in my mind, the Obama Administration's response was NOT optimal.
This is no different than the people who tried to lay the blame for the September 11th attacks at the feet of George Bush or Bill Clinton. It's an irresponsible hatchet job which is nothing but tin-foil hat shenanigans.
Disagree...
Both Clinton and Bush I think responded appropriately.
In this Bengahzi case... it's worth discussing this.
Where is any kind of evidence that "security was poorly planned"?
And if you say "the attack happened", I point you towards September 11th, the London bombings, Madrid bombings, and practically any successful terrorist attack.
You cannot plan for a terrorist attack in any meaningful way.
You can beef up security all you want via target hardening, but there's no guarantee it will stop the attack.
You can step up intelligence gathering all you want, but there's no guarantee that it will yield anything meaningful which can be used to prevent an attack.
When it comes down to dealing with a terrorist attack, it essentially boils down to two things:
Preemptive strikes against the group which would be committing the attack (no guarantee it will actually prevent the attack in question, as the members of the group in the field might already be underway and not with the group proper).
Establishing protocols for a proper response...which generally is not "TERRORISTS DID IT!".
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh so now it's not terrorism, it was an assassination?
I am so, so tired of this stupid narrative that Obama is weak on terrorism; which is what this "story" is all about. Obama that vacillator, who diddles while terrorists strike at us with impunity. Frankly, it's just a swift-boat tactic - take your opponents strengths and try to turn them into a weakness.
I think it's less important how the White House "classifies" attacks in public speeches, or the incredible weak meaning-of-is-is hyper-parsing of " a terror attack" vs "acts of terror" - and more important to look at what this administration actually does; which is to say put more actual tangos in boxes then any previous one. I can understand why the right wing wishes to downplay this.
Kanluwen wrote: Where is any kind of evidence that "security was poorly planned"?
And if you say "the attack happened", I point you towards September 11th, the London bombings, Madrid bombings, and practically any successful terrorist attack.
Uh... Hillary Clinton took responsibility over the lack of security... check out the interwebz...
You cannot plan for a terrorist attack in any meaningful way.
You can beef up security all you want via target hardening, but there's no guarantee it will stop the attack.
You can step up intelligence gathering all you want, but there's no guarantee that it will yield anything meaningful which can be used to prevent an attack.
I understand that... but you're missing my point.
The actual security of Bengahzi was called into question numerous times by security personel and the Ambassador himself.
When it comes down to dealing with a terrorist attack, it essentially boils down to two things:
Preemptive strikes against the group which would be committing the attack (no guarantee it will actually prevent the attack in question, as the members of the group in the field might already be underway and not with the group proper).
Establishing protocols for a proper response...which generally is not "TERRORISTS DID IT!".
There you go... we're getting closer.
My arguments was the Administration's handling of their responses to this...
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh so now it's not terrorism, it was an assassination?
Hillary came out saying the intell report she was recieving was "subject to change" and added in the "Fog of War" bit. She covered down on the intell people. Same people from the same dept briefing Obama and Biden. As it was becoming clearer even Jay Carney said it was a terrorist attack (think he hinted heavily on that) Still Obama, Biden and Rice were not on the same sheet of music than everyone else. As for not being informed about the previous attacks on the Benghazi Compound which I'm sure the request for additional security was probaly mention by their foriegn affair team does not hold water.
edit
Assassination by a terrorist grp. The picture of the counsulate does not support mob mentality attack.
Kanluwen wrote: Where is any kind of evidence that "security was poorly planned"?
And if you say "the attack happened", I point you towards September 11th, the London bombings, Madrid bombings, and practically any successful terrorist attack.
Uh... Hillary Clinton took responsibility over the lack of security... check out the interwebz...
Irrelevant.
We all know it's politicking. She's taking the flak, but at the same time setting herself up as a major decision maker in the administration.
You cannot plan for a terrorist attack in any meaningful way.
You can beef up security all you want via target hardening, but there's no guarantee it will stop the attack.
You can step up intelligence gathering all you want, but there's no guarantee that it will yield anything meaningful which can be used to prevent an attack.
I understand that... but you're missing my point.
The actual security of Bengahzi was called into question numerous times by security personnel and the Ambassador himself.
Again. You keep repeating this.
And again, it is irrelevant. I'm sure if you were to pull up the records of any number of diplomatic envoys for any nation--there would be instances of denied requests relating to improved security.
The ONLY reason this is a big deal is because the threat turned out to be genuine. And I can pretty much guarantee you that even if there had been beefed up security, the attack still would have taken place.
The only thing that would have changed is the number of dead and whose side they were on.
When it comes down to dealing with a terrorist attack, it essentially boils down to two things:
Preemptive strikes against the group which would be committing the attack (no guarantee it will actually prevent the attack in question, as the members of the group in the field might already be underway and not with the group proper).
Establishing protocols for a proper response...which generally is not "TERRORISTS DID IT!".
There you go... we're getting closer.
My arguments was the Administration's handling of their responses to this...
Which was the appropriate response...for the most part.
What you seem to neglect, continually, is that even in a best case situation--things like this are "developing stories". Even with the best intelligence assets on the ground (which they might have been, but likely were not), the best forensic teams reconstructing the incident, etc--there would still be a time lag in how fast information travels.
Even if Obama had not been at a fundraiser, collating useful data from the raw intelligence is a time consuming effort. Preparing that useful data into an even more useful format is more time added.
And I should add that technology does not really play a factor there. All the best technology in the world does is make it so it's easier for you to find what you're looking for, not what you needed to find.
Oh so now it's not terrorism, it was an assassination?
erm.. what?
Can't they be the same thing?
Sure, but if you and the Republicans are playing word games it'd be helpful if you knew what the difference between "terrorist attack" and "assassination" was in this context.
I'm trying to figure out what is wrong with trying to figure out exactly what happened before lurching in to making declarations?
I mean, an email got sent claiming responsibility. So fething what? Surely the next step is to verify the email, and then confirm the group involved were in fact responsible for the attack. If that takes a week or two, so fething what? What is the time pressure? What is lost by waiting until you know exactly what's going on before speaking definitively on the subject?
Kanluwen wrote:Since you still seemingly fail to understand the whole point of not immediately leaping at calling it a terrorist attack (an "act of terror", if you will...), I probably should not post this, but...
What you seem to fail to grasp is that groups (and individuals for that matter) claim responsibility for things that they did not do all the time.
It would have been downright irresponsible of the government to make the statement that the group "Ansar al-Sharia" was responsible for the attack in Tripoli without at least a cursory factchecking is an exercise in stupidity and irresponsibility.
No! Let's all rush off and invade somewhere again, first! Fact checking is for sissy lefties! Someone said terrorism, so CHARGE!
whembly wrote:
kanluwen wrote:
Oh so now it's not terrorism, it was an assassination?
erm.. what?
Can't they be the same thing?
Not in this context. I think it best that you state what definitions forthose terms you are working with before we continue, however.
It is perfectly obvious that this whole issue is a sad Republican beat stick they are trying to cobble up to attack the President because they are finding it hard to make any real concerns stick on substantive issues.
Obama and Co are horrible people because they don't release every piece of evidence as soon as they become known and don't give credit to any group that claims they orchestrated an attack. If we are not able to post what we know as soon as we know it and let bad guys know that we know it then the bad guys already won.
Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.
Not good for Obama, Biden and Rice. Only one coming out of this not damage is Hillary.
Who ironically is the one responsible as she's in chrage of the State Department. Thats political juijitsu right there.
She should be fired.
Four americans got opted out in Benghazi.Since the republicans are using those four lives that lost as a beat stick on Obama who for two weeks kept saying a mob did it that the republicans are wrong for doing it. I can see Obama is "The Chosen One" for some of you all.
Jihadin wrote: Four americans got opted out in Benghazi.Since the republicans are using those four lives that lost as a beat stick on Obama who for two weeks kept saying a mob did it that the republicans are wrong for doing it. I can see Obama is "The Chosen One" for some of you all.
Yes he is, blind allegiance is needed or all will be destroyed.
And please keep bringing forth evidence that he said "a mob did it". He mentioned acts of terror on day one, and as evidence was still pouring in it changed from being in varying levels related to a mob or having used a mob as a diversion.
I'm sure glad we knew exactly what happened a couple days after a few thousand americans died...
I'm sure the next Republican administration will release all intelligence in real time to the public.
There is so much legit things to critizise Obama on, but the level at which Republicans are trying to stick certain things to him in desparation (how many things from 2008 are we seeing again?) is just sad.
And please keep bringing forth evidence that he said "a mob did it". He mentioned acts of terror on day one, and as evidence was still pouring in it changed from being in varying levels related to a mob or having used a mob as a diversion.
Day One Libya said off the got go it was not a mob attack.
And please keep bringing forth evidence that he said "a mob did it". He mentioned acts of terror on day one, and as evidence was still pouring in it changed from being in varying levels related to a mob or having used a mob as a diversion.
Day One Libya said off the got go it was not a mob attack.
Libya made an official anouncement on the day of the attack that there was no mob?
Jihadin wrote: Four americans got opted out in Benghazi.Since the republicans are using those four lives that lost as a beat stick on Obama who for two weeks kept saying a mob did it that the republicans are wrong for doing it. I can see Obama is "The Chosen One" for some of you all.
It is firmly on record that Obama made a statement on the Whitehouse Lawn the day after the attack, talking about acts of terrorism. It came up in the second debate.
This thread is about the idea that Obama is unfit to be president because he should have got the Whitehouse press corps out of bed 2hrs 1min after the attack to make that speech.
Meanwhile it was Republican politicians who cut the security budget allocation.
The story is going around now that Obama wanted the attack to happen but that the Ambassador would be kidnapped. This is why the security was continually denied This way Obama could be a hero right before the election by saving tha Ambassador. Now they are on scenario 2 where he catches or kills the mastermind right before the election.
Sounds pretty tin foil, but damn, some people are believing it.
Relapse wrote: The story is going around now that Obama wanted the attack to happen but that the Ambassador would be kidnapped. This is why the security was continually denied This way Obama could be a hero right before the election by saving tha Ambassador. Now they are on scenario 2 where he catches or kills the mastermind right before the election.
Sounds pretty tin foil, but damn, some people are believing it.
I realize the sort of crowd this plays to are largely immune to the charms of critical thinking, but I nonetheless feel compelled to point out that the last time there was a hostage situation previous to a presidental election, it went poorly for the incumbent; it seems unlikely any professional politician would engineer a situation where the only likely outcomes are "bad" and "worse".
I heard republicans paid off the terrorists and they wanted the hostage. After Obama lost they would order the hostage released on the day Romney gets sworn in so that the could all proclaim with tears in their eyes "It's like Reagan all over again".
If Bush's administration had given public statements for days afterwards that blatantly contradicted their internal knowledge in an effort to downplay the seriousness of an attack on the United States in order to make themselves appear stronger for reelection, a lot of the folks in this thread would be having strokes.
Speaking of pathetic, that's exactly what I think of that level of partisan devotion.
No, we aren't. We're pointing out that if Bush had done the same thing, there'd be paramedics at your house right now thanks to how hard and fast you were hitting those keys.
No, we aren't. We're pointing out that if Bush had done the same thing, there'd be paramedics at your house right now thanks to how hard and fast you were hitting those keys.
Why argue the matter at hand and the facts we have, when we can instead make observations about hypothetical situations that only exist in the pretend world we make up in our heads, huh?
Ouze wrote: Why argue the matter at hand and the facts we have, when we can instead make observations about hypothetical situations that only exist in the pretend world we make up in our heads, huh?
So in other words, you're perfectly willing to admit that if we had a generic president, you'd find continued attempts to cast the Benghazi attack as the result of a non-existent protest for over a week after it occurred, despite immediate intelligence to the contrary that it was in fact an act of terrorism on the anniversary of 9/11, as rather fishy, but because we're not dealing with that 'hypothetical' and it's Obama who's the president, all is kosher?
d-usa wrote: He called it an act of terror at the first conference, what's so complicated about that?
He didn't, actually, and even if you don't bother to read the entire speech and decide to take one line, out of context, as the definitive statement on the issue, the rest of his administration didn't get the message, as he had high-ranking members thereof continuing to publicly say long afterwards that it was the unplanned result of a spontaneous protest against that dumbass flick.
d-usa wrote: He called it an act of terror at the first conference, what's so complicated about that?
He didn't, actually, and even if you don't bother to read the entire speech and decide to take one line, out of context, as the definitive statement on the issue, the rest of his administration didn't get the message, as he had high-ranking members thereof continuing to publicly say long afterwards that it was the unplanned result of a spontaneous protest against that dumbass flick.
I have read the whole speech. It's 3 paragraphs about the attack, one paragraph about the "old 9/11" and our soldiers, and then the statement about acts of terror. If you want to pretend all the talking about the attack didn't happen and that he was not talking about that then more power to you.
d-usa wrote: He called it an act of terror at the first conference, what's so complicated about that?
He didn't, actually, and even if you don't bother to read the entire speech and decide to take one line, out of context, as the definitive statement on the issue, the rest of his administration didn't get the message, as he had high-ranking members thereof continuing to publicly say long afterwards that it was the unplanned result of a spontaneous protest against that dumbass flick.
I have read the whole speech. It's 3 paragraphs about the attack, one paragraph about the "old 9/11" and our soldiers, and then the statement about acts of terror. If you want to pretend all the talking about the attack didn't happen and that he was not talking about that then more power to you.
D... you need to watch the speech.
It was OBVIOUS that he was trying NOT to label it as a terriorist attack...
Then he and the rest of his administration on the subsequent days blamed it on the riot/anti-muslim video...
No, we aren't. We're pointing out that if Bush had done the same thing, there'd be paramedics at your house right now thanks to how hard and fast you were hitting those keys.
Well, youi've made up a story about what might have happened if in a parallell universe blah blah blah and surprisingly it proves your case.
d-usa wrote: He called it an act of terror at the first conference, what's so complicated about that?
He didn't, actually, and even if you don't bother to read the entire speech and decide to take one line, out of context, as the definitive statement on the issue, the rest of his administration didn't get the message, as he had high-ranking members thereof continuing to publicly say long afterwards that it was the unplanned result of a spontaneous protest against that dumbass flick.
I have read the whole speech. It's 3 paragraphs about the attack, one paragraph about the "old 9/11" and our soldiers, and then the statement about acts of terror. If you want to pretend all the talking about the attack didn't happen and that he was not talking about that then more power to you.
D... you need to watch the speech.
It was OBVIOUS that he was trying NOT to label it as a terriorist attack...
Then he and the rest of his administration on the subsequent days blamed it on the riot/anti-muslim video...
Because the best way not to label something a terrorist act is to call it an act of terror.
Of course this comes from the same folks who believe that not compromising on anything makes the other guys non-bipartisan.
So, let's assume Obama is this master manipulator and acts entirely out of a desire to win the election. Why wouldn't he call it a terrorist attack? Remember the last time we had a terrorist attack on US citizens and the president took advantage of it (and the massive boost in popularity resulting from being seen as tough on terrorism) to pretty much do whatever he wanted? You know, a little event called 9/11? Wouldn't Obama benefit from doing the same, and using the attack to boost his approval rating right before the election? What possible motivation could he have for NOT calling it a terrorist attack?
Kilkrazy wrote: Well, youi've made up a story about what might have happened if in a parallell universe blah blah blah and surprisingly it proves your case.
So you're fine with a president from either party attempting to downplay a terrorist attack to improve his reelection chances?
Or do you simply believe that nobody but Obama knew what the hell happened in Benghazi for a week afterwards, while CNN was moseying around picking up classified documents, and didn't bother listening to his apparent tell-all in the Rose Garden and continued to insist on referring to phantom protests despite clear evidence, right from the start, to the contrary?
At this point, it's best to just smile and nod when dealing with Whembly and the other Dakka Republicans.
They're far too invested in the idea that Obama is history's greatest monster to actually look beyond what Fox News or Romney say and make their own decisions based on facts rather than feelings.
Peregrine wrote: So, let's assume Obama is this master manipulator and acts entirely out of a desire to win the election. Why wouldn't he call it a terrorist attack? Remember the last time we had a terrorist attack on US citizens and the president took advantage of it (and the massive boost in popularity resulting from being seen as tough on terrorism) to pretty much do whatever he wanted? You know, a little event called 9/11? Wouldn't Obama benefit from doing the same, and using the attack to boost his approval rating right before the election? What possible motivation could he have for NOT calling it a terrorist attack?
The "unifying national tragedy" narrative doesn't really work when it turns out the ball was dropped on security and the guy who got killed pointed it out more than a couple of times.
Seaward wrote: So you're fine with a president from either party attempting to downplay a terrorist attack to improve his reelection chances?
Sure. I'd rather they downplay the attack instead of using it as an excuse to start another war in an effort to improve their reelection chances, which is probably much more effective at winning an election than denial.
Kilkrazy wrote: Well, youi've made up a story about what might have happened if in a parallell universe blah blah blah and surprisingly it proves your case.
So you're fine with a president from either party attempting to downplay a terrorist attack to improve his reelection chances?
Or do you simply believe that nobody but Obama knew what the hell happened in Benghazi for a week afterwards, while CNN was moseying around picking up classified documents, and didn't bother listening to his apparent tell-all in the Rose Garden and continued to insist on referring to phantom protests despite clear evidence, right from the start, to the contrary?
Now you've made an assumption about what the president was doing in secret and surprisingly it proves your case.
Seaward wrote: The "unifying national tragedy" narrative doesn't really work when it turns out the ball was dropped on security and the guy who got killed pointed it out more than a couple of times.
Sure it does, you just talk loudly about "freedom" and "they hate us because of our freedom" and "bringing freedom to anyone living under the threat of anti-freedom terrorism" and know that you'll gain more votes from that than you'll lose from the few people who bother to look into the security failures. After all, 9/11 was a tremendous achievement in the field of ball dropping and that didn't stop Bush from exploiting it for political gain.
Kanluwen wrote: At this point, it's best to just smile and nod when dealing with Whembly and the other Dakka Republicans.
They're far too invested in the idea that Obama is history's greatest monster to actually look beyond what Fox News or Romney say and make their own decisions based on facts rather than feelings.
Nod away...
And for the record... he's not the greatest Monster.
d-usa wrote: He called it an act of terror at the first conference, what's so complicated about that?
If you paid any attention at all to the press conferences and releases from the State Department, it was clear that they were trying to portray this as a one-off spontaneous 'incident', the result of many difficult to predict extraneous factors coalescing into a black swan event for many weeks after the event. There was no 'face' to the event and no one to retaliate against, and it was unfortunate but things are 'fine' now.
Every single piece of new information we get basically depics that whole framing as completely wrong and bogus, either a deliberate lie by State (a proxy for the Executive branch) or the result of mass incompetence from the Secretary down.
Regardless of where your political affiliation resides, that's actually a pretty big deal.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote: They're far too invested in the idea that Obama is history's greatest monster to actually look beyond what Fox News or Romney say and make their own decisions based on facts rather than feelings.
I would like to see which series of facts you can lay out that make the whole Benghazi incident look like anything but backpedaling and bumbling.
Seaward wrote: The "unifying national tragedy" narrative doesn't really work when it turns out the ball was dropped on security and the guy who got killed pointed it out more than a couple of times.
Sure it does, you just talk loudly about "freedom" and "they hate us because of our freedom" and "bringing freedom to anyone living under the threat of anti-freedom terrorism" and know that you'll gain more votes from that than you'll lose from the few people who bother to look into the security failures. After all, 9/11 was a tremendous achievement in the field of ball dropping and that didn't stop Bush from exploiting it for political gain.
It didn't at all, no, but we're also in a post-9/11 world. Bush had the cushion of "oh my God I can't believe this happened" working for him, which is why he came out of it for years afterwards looking like some sort of hero despite sitting there wetting himself for the better part of ten minutes when initially informed of it. I don't think the American public would be quite as unconditionally supportive now that we've been in this game for a decade and have spent billions of dollars trying to prevent this sort of stuff from happening.
Kilkrazy wrote: Well, youi've made up a story about what might have happened if in a parallell universe blah blah blah and surprisingly it proves your case.
So you're fine with a president from either party attempting to downplay a terrorist attack to improve his reelection chances?
Or do you simply believe that nobody but Obama knew what the hell happened in Benghazi for a week afterwards, while CNN was moseying around picking up classified documents, and didn't bother listening to his apparent tell-all in the Rose Garden and continued to insist on referring to phantom protests despite clear evidence, right from the start, to the contrary?
Yes, Obama and his team got note of the attack and had this great idea:
"Hey guys, let's just pretend this wasn't a terrorist attack and just keep it all a secret for the next month or so. This will totally work because it wasn't an international incident and there is no such thing as 24 news, international intelligence, and the internet. Nobody will ever know..."
Peregrine wrote: So, let's assume Obama is this master manipulator and acts entirely out of a desire to win the election. Why wouldn't he call it a terrorist attack? Remember the last time we had a terrorist attack on US citizens and the president took advantage of it (and the massive boost in popularity resulting from being seen as tough on terrorism) to pretty much do whatever he wanted? You know, a little event called 9/11? Wouldn't Obama benefit from doing the same, and using the attack to boost his approval rating right before the election? What possible motivation could he have for NOT calling it a terrorist attack?
While that would help him out domestically...
But, it would mean that his foreign policy wasn't as successful and that's bascially his only strength over Romney.
d-usa wrote: Or do you simply believe that nobody but Obama knew what the hell happened in Benghazi for a week afterwards, while CNN was moseying around picking up classified documents, and didn't bother listening to his apparent tell-all in the Rose Garden and continued to insist on referring to phantom protests despite clear evidence, right from the start, to the contrary?
Yes, Obama and his team got note of the attack and had this great idea:
"Hey guys, let's just pretend this wasn't a terrorist attack and just keep it all a secret for the next month or so. This will totally work because it wasn't an international incident and there is no such thing as 24 news, international intelligence, and the internet. Nobody will ever know..."
d-usa wrote: Yes, Obama and his team got note of the attack and had this great idea:
"Hey guys, let's just pretend this wasn't a terrorist attack and just keep it all a secret for the next month or so. This will totally work because it wasn't an international incident and there is no such thing as 24 news, international intelligence, and the internet. Nobody will ever know..."
It sounds like a dumb plan to me, but then, it wouldn't exactly be the first drummed up in the Oval Office.
I have no idea if the administration was actually trying to Jedi mind trick everybody into believing it was a protest that got out of hand or if they simply failed to listen to the intelligence telling them otherwise, but either way, classifying it as 'not a failure' is a bizarre response.
whembly wrote: But, it would mean that his foreign policy wasn't as successful and that's bascially his only strength over Romney.
Just like 9/11 meant that our foreign policy wasn't successful, and it resulted in a drop in popularity for the president?
Plus there's also the fact that a traditional criticism of the democrats is that they're weak on defending the country, and loudly swearing vengeance on those responsible (and then killing an appropriate "guilty" party) would silence that criticism.
I am always amazed how people think that Obama is some genius master who fools the entire country into voting for some Muslim Kenyan so that he can destroy the United States from inside the highest office, while at the same time being such an idiot at coming up with mustache twirling evil plans.
d-usa wrote: I am always amazed how people think that Obama is some genius master who fools the entire country into voting for some Muslim Kenyan so that he can destroy the United States from inside the highest office, while at the same time being such an idiot at coming up with mustache twirling evil plans.
I hope you're not implying anyone here thinks that. I certainly didn't when I gave him a bunch of cash and voted for him.
d-usa wrote: I am always amazed how people think that Obama is some genius master who fools the entire country into voting for some Muslim Kenyan so that he can destroy the United States from inside the highest office, while at the same time being such an idiot at coming up with mustache twirling evil plans.
I don't see that...
I see that his world view is flawed and general incompetent.
But, I will give him this... outside of possible Bill Clinton, he's a damn good, savvy campaigner.
d-usa wrote: I am always amazed how people think that Obama is some genius master who fools the entire country into voting for some Muslim Kenyan so that he can destroy the United States from inside the highest office, while at the same time being such an idiot at coming up with mustache twirling evil plans.
I don't see that...
I see that his world view is flawed and general incompetent.
But, I will give him this... outside of possible Bill Clinton, he's a damn good, savvy campaigner.
How is his world view flawed and generally incompetent?
Ouze wrote: Why argue the matter at hand and the facts we have, when we can instead make observations about hypothetical situations that only exist in the pretend world we make up in our heads, huh?
So in other words, you're perfectly willing to admit that if we had a generic president, you'd find continued attempts to cast the Benghazi attack as the result of a non-existent protest for over a week after it occurred, despite immediate intelligence to the contrary that it was in fact an act of terrorism on the anniversary of 9/11, as rather fishy, but because we're not dealing with that 'hypothetical' and it's Obama who's the president, all is kosher?
The Party uber alles, comrades!
As delighting as the prospect of engaging in hypothetical discussions of what I might have done in an imaginary situation are, the last line there clearly indicates you already know what imaginary-Ouze would do in these same hypothetical situations. It does not seem my presence is actually required for this "discussions" you're having with "me", and you seem to be having fun, so I see no reason to spoil your narrative with answers. Enjoy yourself, buddy!
As delighting as the prospect of engaging in hypothetical discussions of what I might have done in an imaginary situation are, the last line there clearly indicates you already know what imaginary-Ouze would do in these same hypothetical situations. It does not seem my presence is actually required for this "discussions" you're having with "me", and you seem to be having fun, so I see no reason to spoil your narrative with answers. Enjoy yourself, buddy!
Alright, let's abandon hypotheticals, as they frighten you so.
What are your thoughts on an administration that tells the American people an incorrect version of an attack on Americans despite having intelligence that confirms the true version, well after they've confirmed it?
As delighting as the prospect of engaging in hypothetical discussions of what I might have done in an imaginary situation are, the last line there clearly indicates you already know what imaginary-Ouze would do in these same hypothetical situations. It does not seem my presence is actually required for this "discussions" you're having with "me", and you seem to be having fun, so I see no reason to spoil your narrative with answers. Enjoy yourself, buddy!
Alright, let's abandon hypotheticals, as they frighten you so.
What are your thoughts on an administration that tells the American people an incorrect version of an attack on Americans despite having intelligence that confirms the true version, well after they've confirmed it?
Keep in mind that "having intelligence that confirms the true version" includes emails saying "there are guys on Facebook saying 'we did that'"...
d-usa wrote: Keep in mind that "having intelligence that confirms the true version" includes emails saying "there are guys on Facebook saying 'we did that'"...
Includes, but is not exclusive to. Washington Post reporting a couple of weeks after the event quoted administration officials saying they had locations on confirmed attackers within twenty-four hours.
d-usa wrote: Keep in mind that "having intelligence that confirms the true version" includes emails saying "there are guys on Facebook saying 'we did that'"...
Includes, but is not exclusive to. Washington Post reporting a couple of weeks after the event quoted administration officials saying they had locations on confirmed attackers within twenty-four hours.
Great, so your proposal would be this:
Obama giving speech: We know who did this and we know where they are.
Bad guys: let's split....
You guys might want the administration to live-tweet to the bad guys everything we know about them, but to me that sounds like a pretty dumb idea.
d-usa wrote: Great, so your proposal would be this:
Obama giving speech: We know who did this and we know where they are.
Bad guys: let's split....
You guys might want the administration to live-tweet to the bad guys everything we know about them, but to me that sounds like a pretty dumb idea.
Nah.
My proposal would be not to go around for a week afterward having your spokesfolks telling anyone who'll listen that it was a protest that got out of hand, and really it's all this horrible film's fault when you know perfectly well that isn't true.
d-usa wrote: Great, so your proposal would be this:
Obama giving speech: We know who did this and we know where they are. Bad guys: let's split....
You guys might want the administration to live-tweet to the bad guys everything we know about them, but to me that sounds like a pretty dumb idea.
Nah.
My proposal would be not to go around for a week afterward having your spokesfolks telling anyone who'll listen that it was a protest that got out of hand, and really it's all this horrible film's fault when you know perfectly well that isn't true.
I'm confused why that seems so unreasonable.
Because you want our administration to say it was an attack when we don't know 100% who did it and why they did it, and if we do know who did it you want them to tell the bad guys what we know about them?
Laying our cards on the table for everybody to see sounds like a pretty dumb game of poker.
Because you want our administration to say it was an attack when we don't know 100% who did it and why they did it, and if we do know who did it you want them to tell the bad guys what we know about them?
Laying our cards on the table for everybody to see sounds like a pretty dumb game of poker.
Where did I say that?
I'll say it again: My proposal would be not to go around for a week afterward having your spokesfolks telling anyone who'll listen that it was a protest that got out of hand, and really it's all this horrible film's fault when you know perfectly well that isn't true.
Could you tell me where you got the bit about telling the bad guys what we know about them from that?
Because you want our administration to say it was an attack when we don't know 100% who did it and why they did it, and if we do know who did it you want them to tell the bad guys what we know about them?
Laying our cards on the table for everybody to see sounds like a pretty dumb game of poker.
Where did I say that?
I'll say it again: My proposal would be not to go around for a week afterward having your spokesfolks telling anyone who'll listen that it was a protest that got out of hand, and really it's all this horrible film's fault when you know perfectly well that isn't true.
Could you tell me where you got the bit about telling the bad guys what we know about them from that?
So we say "we know nothing" or "we know stuff but it is top secret"?
So we say "we know nothing" or "we know stuff but it is top secret"?
I'd go with a generic, "We do not yet know who is responsible, but mark my words, by the power of Greyskull, we will find them and bring them to justice."
So we say "we know nothing" or "we know stuff but it is top secret"?
I'd go with a generic, "We do not yet know who is responsible, but mark my words, by the power of Greyskull, we will find them and bring them to justice."
So you are going with the "we don't know anything" answer.
As delighting as the prospect of engaging in hypothetical discussions of what I might have done in an imaginary situation are, the last line there clearly indicates you already know what imaginary-Ouze would do in these same hypothetical situations. It does not seem my presence is actually required for this "discussions" you're having with "me", and you seem to be having fun, so I see no reason to spoil your narrative with answers. Enjoy yourself, buddy!
Alright, let's abandon hypotheticals, as they frighten you so.
What are your thoughts on an administration that tells the American people an incorrect version of an attack on Americans despite having intelligence that confirms the true version, well after they've confirmed it?
I'm not scared of hypotheticals. I'm not scared of anything, except bees, wasps, clowns, the dark, Michael Myers, and the that troll from the movie where he sucks the breath out of sleeping people until a cat fights him off.
So you are going with the "we don't know anything" answer.
It might have had the benefit of actually being the truth.
Again, one of two things: either they didn't listen to their intel, or they listened to their intel and decided to tell a different story that would have reflected better on them had it held. If you're comfortable with that, so be it. I'm not.
I think it was a combination of working with intel they had, not knowing everything, and not wanting to show their cards to the bad guys right away. I don't think they handled it all that well, and there are still lots of answers that need to be found with everything leading up to the attack. What did we know of the threats, what about the requests for security (the "republicans cut funding" excuse might be a part, but if so it is not a complete answer), etc...
This thing is a black eye and we need to make it right.
But I don't think there was a coverup and planned attempt to fool the public and sweep dead Americans under the rug to get a second term.
d-usa wrote:There is so much legit things to critizise Obama on, but the level at which Republicans are trying to stick certain things to him in desparation (how many things from 2008 are we seeing again?) is just sad.
I would personally like to see Obama be grilled about signing the bill for the NDAA. That would be a real issue to talk about.
Seaward wrote:If Bush's administration had given public statements for days afterwards that blatantly contradicted their internal knowledge in an effort to downplay the seriousness of an attack on the United States in order to make themselves appear stronger for reelection, a lot of the folks in this thread would be having strokes.
Yeah, good thing he instead choose to finish reading My Pet Goat instead.
d-usa wrote: I heard republicans paid off the terrorists and they wanted the hostage. After Obama lost they would order the hostage released on the day Romney gets sworn in so that the could all proclaim with tears in their eyes "It's like Reagan all over again".
d-usa wrote: I heard republicans paid off the terrorists and they wanted the hostage. After Obama lost they would order the hostage released on the day Romney gets sworn in so that the could all proclaim with tears in their eyes "It's like Reagan all over again".
Let's not forget that Bush engineered 9/11
Er...what?
I know there were truther who claims that was an inside job... even though we had recorded tapes of the planes hitting the tower....
I don't know why this is so partisan... I am not tied to either candidate, and am very concerned about why it took so long for us to admit that what happened was actually terrorism.
I don't like the motivation for doing so in an election year... it's damn irresponsible imo, whether or not there was any ill intent. At the minimum, they could've toned down the rhetoric about the freaking internet video. That got parroted by every news agency and seems to have been bogus. That sucks.
d-usa wrote: I heard republicans paid off the terrorists and they wanted the hostage. After Obama lost they would order the hostage released on the day Romney gets sworn in so that the could all proclaim with tears in their eyes "It's like Reagan all over again".
Let's not forget that Bush engineered 9/11
Er...what?
I know there were truther who claims that was an inside job... even though we had recorded tapes of the planes hitting the tower....
That was one of the things I heard along with the tale that it was a missle fired into the Pentagon. The rumor mongers are like flies to gak whenever something like this happens.
d-usa wrote: I heard republicans paid off the terrorists and they wanted the hostage. After Obama lost they would order the hostage released on the day Romney gets sworn in so that the could all proclaim with tears in their eyes "It's like Reagan all over again".
Let's not forget that Bush engineered 9/11
Er...what?
I know there were truther who claims that was an inside job... even though we had recorded tapes of the planes hitting the tower....
That was one of the things I heard along with the tale that it was a missle fired into the Pentagon. The rumor mongers are like flies to gak whenever something like this happens.
@Relapse... ah... gotcha Sorry, not all my synapes are firing today...
Back on topic... this is getting attention even from BLACKFIVE:
Without a doubt, there are more consequences than are listed here, and we certainly should understand why certain decisions were made to do nothing, to reduce security, and, for weeks, to blame the enchillada on radical youtube video...
First of all, we lost four very good men during the attack. Men that are irreplacable.
Second, we know now that the President, the VP and the SecDef knew what was happening within a relatively immediate timeframe. The way it should have worked was that the SecDef should have given the President options. Of course, one option is to do nothing. Apparently, even after knowing what was happening and having drone footage ~2 hours into the fight, the President decided on nothing. This is problematic if you work for State in the ME. You know now that the President won't help you in times of dire need. You will either stop taking any risks or you will decide to use more force than might be necessary. Either way, it's not good for our State people over there.
The President made the decision to not use F18s (even in a flyover to shake the resolve of the terrorists). The President made the decision to go to Vegas to a campaign dinner.
So what is worse than our State people now knowing that the President will do nothing if they are attacked?
I miss the good old days during Bush Jr when any criticism of a sitting president after 'merica was attacked meant you were a treasones America-hating bastard who just needed to get the hell out of this country.
d-usa wrote: So they knew Bush would do nothing either?
I miss the good old days during Bush Jr when any criticism of a sitting president after 'merica was attacked meant you were a treasones America-hating bastard who just needed to get the hell out of this country.
So... D... given all that, what's your take on this then:
September 14: White House spokesman Jay Carney had this exchange with ABC News Chief White House Correspondent Jake Tapper:
TAPPER: Wouldn’t it seem logical that the anniversary of 9/11 would be a time that you would want to have extra security around diplomats and military posts?
CARNEY: Well, as you know, there — we are very vigilant around anniversaries like 9/11. The president is always briefed and brought up to speed on all the precautions being taken. But let’s be -
TAPPER: Obviously not vigilant enough.
CARNEY: Jake, let’s be clear. This — these protests were in reaction to a video that had spread to the region –
TAPPER: At Benghazi?
CARNEY: We certainly don’t know; we don’t know otherwise. You know, we have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack. The unrest we’ve seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims find offensive. And while the violence is reprehensible and unjustified, it is not a reaction to the 9/11 anniversary that we know of or to U.S. policy.
September 16: Susan Rice to CBS News' Bob Schieffer:
BOB SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with [Magariaf] that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?
SUSAN RICE: We do not-- we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.
September 16: Susan Rice to Fox News' Chris Wallace:
RICE: The best information and the best assessment we have today is that was, in fact, not a pre-planned and pre-meditated attack. That what happened initially -- it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo, as a consequence of the video, that people gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very violent. Those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons, which unfortunately are quite common in post-revolutionary Libya. And that then spun out of control. We don't see at this point -- signs that this was a coordinated, pre-meditated attack. Obviously we'll wait for the results of the investigation and we don't want to jump to conclusions before then. But I do think it's important for the American people to know our best current assessment.
September 19: Jay Carney to CBS News' Bill Plante:
PLANTE: You are still maintaining that there was no evidence of a pre-planned attack--
CARNEY: Bill, let me just repeat now--
PLANTE: But how is it that the attackers had RPGs, automatic weapons, mortars…
CARNEY: Bill, I know you've done a little bit of reading about Libya since the unrest that began with Gaddafi. The place has an abundance of weapons.
PLANTE: But you expect a street mob to come armed that way?
CARNEY: There are unfortunately many bad actors throughout the region and they're very armed. ….
PLANTE: But they planned to do it, don't you think?
CARNEY: They might, or they might not. All I can tell you is that based on the information that we had then and have now we do not yet have indication that it was pre-planned or pre-meditated. There's an active investigation. If that active investigation produces facts that lead to a different conclusion, we will make clear that that is where the investigation has led. Our interest is in finding out the facts of what happened, not taking what we've read in the newspaper and making bold assertions that we know what happened.
If the Obama Administration wants to hide behind the fog of war to justify its behavior, I'd still like to know why their story became more focused on the YouTube video as the days progressed.
Let me remind you that there are current reports indicated that the Administration had some sort of indication that this was a coordinated attack within hours on 9/11.
And for the record, had this happened during Bush's watch, and he responded the same manner as the current administration, I'd be all over him hollaring too!
d-usa wrote: I think it was a combination of working with intel they had, not knowing everything, and not wanting to show their cards to the bad guys right away. I don't think they handled it all that well, and there are still lots of answers that need to be found with everything leading up to the attack. What did we know of the threats, what about the requests for security (the "republicans cut funding" excuse might be a part, but if so it is not a complete answer), etc...
This thing is a black eye and we need to make it right.
But I don't think there was a coverup and planned attempt to fool the public and sweep dead Americans under the rug to get a second term.
RiTides wrote: I don't know why this is so partisan... I am not tied to either candidate, and am very concerned about why it took so long for us to admit that what happened was actually terrorism.
"Admit"? Really? Multiple protests and attacks happened that day. There was legimate confusion. Obama spoke about acts of terror the following day. AFAICT they did not want to get pinned down claiming definitely that it was any one thing and possibly being wrong. They definitely messed up, but the thing to be concerned about is preventing future attacks as best as possible, and bringing the attackers to justice. I know which candidate has an good track record in those areas.
I like that answer, d-usa, and I don't necessarily think it was a coverup or anything like that- the repercussions are too severe for such a strategy.
But if it's not that, it's just plain botched/bungled/incompetently handled... and I wish they'd owned up to that instead of bristling at any suggestions of being off-base in their response.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Mann- I watched all the debates and Obama claiming that quote from the next day was his implying that that instance was an act of terror is a long stretch, imo... :-/
Didn't mean anything in particular by "admit", sorry if it offended for some reason.
d-usa wrote: Do I need to copy paste my previous answer?
d-usa wrote: I think it was a combination of working with intel they had, not knowing everything, and not wanting to show their cards to the bad guys right away. I don't think they handled it all that well, and there are still lots of answers that need to be found with everything leading up to the attack. What did we know of the threats, what about the requests for security (the "republicans cut funding" excuse might be a part, but if so it is not a complete answer), etc...
This thing is a black eye and we need to make it right.
But I don't think there was a coverup and planned attempt to fool the public and sweep dead Americans under the rug to get a second term.
Right...saw that...
I don't think there was a "water-gateish" coverup... but I do think their reaction were political in nature to mitigate the damage due to the election.
Even if they were being cautious or don't want to show their cards... they were awfully eager to blame it on that anti-muslim film.
In my view... it's simply sheer incompetent. The whole administration.
And to clarify, one of the things that bothered me was how Obama was praised for bristling at the fact he's being questioned on this by Romney.
If they messed up, then they did so badly, and should be contrite about it. But it is too convenient politically to downplay the idea that it was terror to completely rule out that possibility. And again, I like Obama, but I wouldn't trust any polititian in this position not to be thinking of their own job security.
I don't necessarily like the way Romney approached it, either. I thought it was much better to not press the issue in the 3rd debate, and let the facts come out for themselves.
And the facts to me point to this being handled terribly... I want to hear contrition, not indignation on being challenged on it, by the administration. Having an ambassador killed is too big a deal to handle this badly :-/
The WH could have easily said that the attack was a possible Terrorist action and were looking into the details.
Instead they told a complete fib to the Media.
I have no issue with them not wanting to jump to conclusions. I even have no issue with the Government lying, it is often advantageous in a volitile situation to put misleading information out there.
However, I think this was not a situation in which lying about it was appropriate.
Not that its a big deal for me one way or the other.
I think it was an honest mistake at first- but it bothers me how long it took them to change their position. I know in this day and age information is bound to come out... but for almost a week there it seemed every major news agency was calling it a reaction to the video, which simply isn't the case from what I can tell.
It bothers me that either side is trying to use it as a political chip, but that sword cuts both ways. Again, Obama was praised for how he defended his people on their reaction to this, especially in the second debate (even with the help of the moderator!). I thought that was shameful... they messed up and should own it, say the American people deserve better, and they have gotten and Will get better.
Continuing to sweep how wrong they were under the rug only makes matters worse, like any scandal... put it out in the open, own it, confront it, and then let it die down with still 2 weeks to go to the election. By trying to do damage control, they are making a bigger story out of it and it will hurt them more... and that's ignoring the fact that the best thing to do regarding the situation itself is to be as completely open and transparent as possible.
Again, hard to trust any polititian in this position to do the right thing, but why does it take a news agency getting a hold of emails for us to find out that they had intel within hours saying it was a terrorist attack? That's just wrong... no matter who is to blame, and it may just have never gotten to Obama's ear until much later (in fact, that's quite likely I'd think).
And notice how Hillary has remained largely unscathed to this point? She's the fething boss of the State's Dept... who reviews/approves/denies funding/strategies for these diplomatic activities.
From a political standpoint... that was an epic master stroke there.
whembly wrote: And notice how Hillary has remained largely unscathed to this point?
From a political standpoint... that was an epic master stroke there.
Indeed, she probably saw the ****storm that would be generated by this and decided to fess up so she would look like the honest one when all is said and done.
d-usa wrote:There is so much legit things to critizise Obama on, but the level at which Republicans are trying to stick certain things to him in desparation (how many things from 2008 are we seeing again?) is just sad.
I would personally like to see Obama be grilled about signing the bill for the NDAA. That would be a real issue to talk about.
What's the deal with this? The NDAA, as in the Nation Defense Authorization Act?
I suspect something like this?
American citizens on American soil can be jailed indefinitely without the right to legal counsel if suspected of being a terrorist.
Since 9/11 we've always had this, but in different form...
I think the issue is that it codifies this as an executive power to do this (rather than the Patriot Act which needed yearly Congressional approval).
RiTides wrote: Mann- I watched all the debates and Obama claiming that quote from the next day was his implying that that instance was an act of terror is a long stretch, imo... :-/
Didn't mean anything in particular by "admit", sorry if it offended for some reason.
No worries. He referenced acts of terror in relation to this incident, the day afterward. Just because some sources of intelligence said it was a planned terrosist attack shortly after the event doesn't mean it was a settled issue and all other possibilities had been ruled out.
I believe they didn't know for certain what the exact sequence of events was, and to what extent (if any) the attack at the consulate was provoked by the video. There was also clearly some association or confusion with what had happened in Egypt. I thought the President's words in the Rose Garden were appropriately clear about our reaction to the attacks, and if they hedged a bit about their exact nature, that was understandable considering the situation.
The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. We’re working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats. I’ve also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world. And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.
He's only "not admitting" it was a terrorist attack in an invented world in which the adminstration would be trying to conceal a terrorist attack.
They definitely messed up their communications with the public in the week or so after the attack. But I'm not clear where else we're seeing bungling or incompetence. They took responsibility for the failure in security at the consulate, and focused on figuring out what happened and bringing the perpretrators to justice.
Overall it does look to me like the idea that Obama is "incompetent" is a real stretch, aimed to undercut the indisputable fact that his track record on putting terrorists (specifically Al Qaeda ones) into boxes is pretty much untouchable. He's put the last guy who had the job way in the shade in that department; in half the time.
Jihadin wrote: Four americans got opted out in Benghazi.Since the republicans are using those four lives that lost as a beat stick on Obama who for two weeks kept saying a mob did it that the republicans are wrong for doing it. I can see Obama is "The Chosen One" for some of you all.
No, it's about the incoherence of the Republican position on this. There's just shouting that Obama should have said it was terrorism earlier. Well, if he'd said it was terrorism in the very first second after the attack those people would still be dead.
For a while there was noise about requests for security being rejected, but then it turned out that security was for Tripoli, not Benghazi.
So at this point we're left with 'Obama didn't say words soon enough'.
It's stupid.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Day One Libya said off the got go it was not a mob attack.
And Obama chose deliberate language that committed to neither side, and continued to do so until they were certain. Because that's what competent statesmen do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote: The story is going around now that Obama wanted the attack to happen but that the Ambassador would be kidnapped. This is why the security was continually denied This way Obama could be a hero right before the election by saving tha Ambassador. Now they are on scenario 2 where he catches or kills the mastermind right before the election.
Sounds pretty tin foil, but damn, some people are believing it.
Not only is it tinfoil nonsense, its factually incorrect. The rejected security request was for Tripoli, not Benghazi.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: If Bush's administration had given public statements for days afterwards that blatantly contradicted their internal knowledge in an effort to downplay the seriousness of an attack on the United States in order to make themselves appear stronger for reelection, a lot of the folks in this thread would be having strokes.
Speaking of pathetic, that's exactly what I think of that level of partisan devotion.
There is no political capital to be gained from playing down attacks. Inventing that kind of stupid inside your brain can only come from partisan devotion.
Standing up and saying 'there's been a terrorist attack and America is under siege and I'm a strong leader and look at all these strong leader things I'm going to do' is, on the other hand, political gold. Stupid policy, but political gold.
Taking a middle ground, not committing to any position until the realities are certain, that isn't going to win votes, but is exactly what proper governance is about.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: So in other words, you're perfectly willing to admit that if we had a generic president, you'd find continued attempts to cast the Benghazi attack as the result of a non-existent protest for over a week after it occurred, despite immediate intelligence to the contrary that it was in fact an act of terrorism on the anniversary of 9/11, as rather fishy, but because we're not dealing with that 'hypothetical' and it's Obama who's the president, all is kosher?
The Party uber alles, comrades!
So when the reality of your little moral outrage becomes obviously stupid, you just start making up little hypotheticals and invent whatever stance you want for other posters, all to imagine that they must really be hypocrits.
It was OBVIOUS that he was trying NOT to label it as a terriorist attack...
Then he and the rest of his administration on the subsequent days blamed it on the riot/anti-muslim video...
He chose deliberately non-commital language, and waited for absolute confirmation that it was terrorism before committing to that. How are people not getting this?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: So you're fine with a president from either party attempting to downplay a terrorist attack to improve his reelection chances?
I'm not okay with people pretending that's a sentence that makes any kind of sense. Seriously, presidents facing external attacks get an immediate, and significant boost to their popularity.
Remember how OBL released that video in the lead up to the 2004 election, and the result was to bury any chance Kerry had of winning the election?
sebster wrote: No, it's about the incoherence of the Republican position on this. There's just shouting that Obama should have said it was terrorism earlier. Well, if he'd said it was terrorism in the very first second after the attack those people would still be dead.
You need to start paying attention. Nobody cares when he used the word 'terrorism'. They care that his administration was using words like 'protest' and 'mob' and 'reaction to the film' long, long after it was clear to everyone else that those things had nothing at all to do with it.
So at this point we're left with 'Obama didn't say words soon enough'.
Well, sure, if you don't know how to read, I suppose that would be a reasonable conclusion.
There is no political capital to be gained from playing down attacks. Inventing that kind of stupid inside your brain can only come from partisan devotion.
Standing up and saying 'there's been a terrorist attack and America is under siege and I'm a strong leader and look at all these strong leader things I'm going to do' is, on the other hand, political gold. Stupid policy, but political gold.
No, that works at the start of a war, it doesn't work over a decade into it. "Oh my Gurr they surprised us rally to me!" doesn't work when people have been doing that for so long they don't care anymore. Then you're just the guy who allowed Americans to be killed on 9/11 again despite being aware of the realities of the world.
Taking a middle ground, not committing to any position until the realities are certain, that isn't going to win votes, but is exactly what proper governance is about.
I agree. I wish that's what they had done.
I'm not okay with people pretending that's a sentence that makes any kind of sense. Seriously, presidents facing external attacks get an immediate, and significant boost to their popularity.
Remember how OBL released that video in the lead up to the 2004 election, and the result was to bury any chance Kerry had of winning the election?
Wait, you think Kerry lost in 2004 because of the OBL video? Why do I bother responding to you?
Mannahnin wrote: They definitely messed up their communications with the public in the week or so after the attack. But I'm not clear where else we're seeing bungling or incompetence. They took responsibility for the failure in security at the consulate, and focused on figuring out what happened and bringing the perpretrators to justice.
I guess I just want to hear more of that- that they messed up in communicating about it.
What I heard even today on NPR was Hillary Clinton saying that "just because something's on facebook doesn't make it intel" or similar. I imagine we get Quite a bit of intel by those means now...
Instead, emphasizing that yes, they did indeed miscommunicate a bit after the fact, would take all the wind out of the sails of the "opposing" argument / people trying to stir up an imaginary scandal.
It took almost two weeks for everyone to get on the same sheet of music. Read back up on security of Benghazi Seb. There were quite a stir before and after the event from the security contract company. The 16 man security attachment was run by an officer or was it a actual militarydetachment. Why were they removed? Actually it had to be a contract security team since no military unit was assigned (marines) to the consulate. WHy the Hell we're still using Security Contractors as embassy security. As for those about the cut in Embassy Security they need to trim down on their GS 14-15's since their doing double work. Security Officer...the ones that ensure encyption, sensitive items, sensitive documents and that goody secret fuzzy critter stuff was effected. Who ever was the contract oversight peeps need to get removed.
I can't imagine that the intell that Obama, Biden and Rice kept pointing at the movie as cause for a week maybe ten days was the main cause. If so those intell weinies need to get canned.
Right now the issue if the military moved fast enough in response to Libya wasn't quick enough or the fact a military strike was warranted is in this mix. Republicans are hitting the bottom for this angle and need to leave it alone. Example. A sniper fires a round. The platoon responds and return fire in the general direction of the sniper. Its a NO GO you don't start shooting back till the target is identified.....I'm all over the place...Vicoden and Lunesta kicking in.
I'm sure that we do have people in intelligence gathering agencies watching Facebook, etc--but that's not our sole source for intelligence and nor should it ever be. The information gathered from there is most likely collated with other information in such a way that it's used to essentially "make the pieces fit" into the larger picture. Intelligence gathering is not a "one source fits all" approach.
That said, it's very important that no matter the views the public may have...law enforcement and the government need to remain focused and approach the situation systematically with care and caution.
The media cannot be allowed to dictate the law enforcement analytical process when dealing with terrorism...which is what we saw in this instance.
Seaward wrote: Well, sure, if you don't know how to read, I suppose that would be a reasonable conclusion.
So, this is actually about Obama not saying words soon enough.
Wow. I mean, I know elections throw up some stupid pretend outrages, but wow.
No, that works at the start of a war, it doesn't work over a decade into it. "Oh my Gurr they surprised us rally to me!" doesn't work when people have been doing that for so long they don't care anymore. Then you're just the guy who allowed Americans to be killed on 9/11 again despite being aware of the realities of the world.
So when Bush won a second term despite losing 3,000 citizens to terrorism... it was okay because no-one was aware of the realities of the world?
This is so stupid.
I agree. I wish that's what they had done.
Oh, okay. So now we're not only supposed to be outraged he didn't say words soon enough, we also have to pretend he originally said the opposite.
This is getting even stupider.
Wait, you think Kerry lost in 2004 because of the OBL video? Why do I bother responding to you?
I said "bury any chance Kerry had of winning the election".
You read "bury any chance Kerry had of winning the election" as "Kerry lost in 2004 because of the OBL video".
sebster wrote: So, this is actually about Obama not saying words soon enough.
Wow. I mean, I know elections throw up some stupid pretend outrages, but wow.
No, this is about the Obama administration saying words that were demonstrably false long after they were aware said words were false.
So when Bush won a second term despite losing 3,000 citizens to terrorism... it was okay because no-one was aware of the realities of the world?
This is so stupid.
I would recommend reading what I actually said next time.
Oh, okay. So now we're not only supposed to be outraged he didn't say words soon enough, we also have to pretend he originally said the opposite.
This is getting even stupider.
His administration said the opposite for quite a while. I apologize if the facts don't work to help establish your narrative, but I presume that, as before, such obstacles will not greatly impede you.
I said "bury any chance Kerry had of winning the election".
You read "bury any chance Kerry had of winning the election" as "Kerry lost in 2004 because of the OBL video".
Stop being ridiculous.
The point is that Kerry buried any chance Kerry had of winning the election.
Seaward wrote: No, this is about the Obama administration saying words that were demonstrably false long after they were aware said words were false.
But he didn't commit to anything. All the language used was carefully chosen to sound like he was saying stuff, without saying anything. Because they were still trying to figure out what was going on.
I would recommend reading what I actually said next time.
I did. You said 'you're just the guy who allowed Americans to be killed on 9/11 again despite being aware of the realities of the world."
Now, Bush's numbers improved after they suffered the attack in 2001. The only way that makes sense is if we assume Bush is let off because he wasn't aware of the realities of the world.
His administration said the opposite for quite a while. I apologize if the facts don't work to help establish your narrative, but I presume that, as before, such obstacles will not greatly impede you.
They didn't say the opposite. They just didn't commit to any position.
The point is that Kerry buried any chance Kerry had of winning the election.
And that's a point that, while certainly true, makes exactly zero sense as a response to what I wrote. Because, obviously, you failed to read my comment.
I wonder if that same failure in reading comprehension has caused the problem you're now having with Obama's comments after the Benghazi attack?
sebster wrote: But he didn't commit to anything. All the language used was carefully chosen to sound like he was saying stuff, without saying anything. Because they were still trying to figure out what was going on.
I don't know how many times I need to tell you that my dissatisfaction is not with the Rose Garden speech. I really don't. Other members of the administration were talking for a week afterwards about stuff that simply did not happen. Answering questions and providing briefings with information confirmed false the day of the attack. Carney, Rice, Clinton...I swear, I'm having flashbacks to the original Benghazi thread where you repeatedly called me an idiot for saying that the ambassador wouldn't be protected just by some half-ass Libyan militiamen, but would in fact have DSS or contractor security. Some of this stuff is just so self-evident I'm not entirely sure how you can avoid acknowledging it save through sheer force of will.
I did. You said 'you're just the guy who allowed Americans to be killed on 9/11 again despite being aware of the realities of the world."
Now, Bush's numbers improved after they suffered the attack in 2001. The only way that makes sense is if we assume Bush is let off because he wasn't aware of the realities of the world.
That's one way of interpreting it, I suppose. The wrong way. But a way.
American perspectives on security irrevocably changed with 9/11. We'd had embassy bombings, the Oklahoma City bombing, even the World Trade Center before, but it wasn't until 9/11 that this country truly said, "That's it, we're taking this gak seriously." A successful anniversary attack after 9/11 would be regarded considerably differently from 9/11 itself. People give Bush a pass on 9/11, because nobody thought anybody would try to pull anything like that off. We now live in a world where we know people will. Failures of our huge, expensive security apparatus aren't going to get a nationalistic response anymore.
They didn't say the opposite. They just didn't commit to any position.
Well, they did, actually. Jay Carney gave a briefing eight days after the attack stating that as far as they knew, it was not a coordinated attack, but was in fact a spontaneous uprising. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice did the same thing, to the point where the State Department actually had to come out several days later and say they had no idea why she had said that. Those are not the only examples.
You can continue to insist that the administration did not have a 'spontaneous, unplanned uprising over the insulting film' narrative going well after intelligence sources had already confirmed to the media that this wasn't the case, but unfortunately you just don't have any facts to back you up.
And that's a point that, while certainly true, makes exactly zero sense as a response to what I wrote. Because, obviously, you failed to read my comment.
No, I read it. It's just wrong. The OBL tape did not bury any chance Kerry had of winning that election.
Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.
Not good for Obama, Biden and Rice. Only one coming out of this not damage is Hillary.
No. Why would it? It takes times for things across the world to happen and get to the three people up top. And that they can't release info on the first word they hear, because a lot of the time the information coming through is not true or irrelevant. Obama, Biden and Rice needed time to processes the information that was given to them and then decide on how they would address the public.
Seaward wrote: I don't know how many times I need to tell you that my dissatisfaction is not with the Rose Garden speech. I really don't. Other members of the administration were talking for a week afterwards about stuff that simply did not happen. Answering questions and providing briefings with information confirmed false the day of the attack. Carney, Rice, Clinton...I swear, I'm having flashbacks to the original Benghazi thread where you repeatedly called me an idiot for saying that the ambassador wouldn't be protected just by some half-ass Libyan militiamen, but would in fact have DSS or contractor security. Some of this stuff is just so self-evident I'm not entirely sure how you can avoid acknowledging it save through sheer force of will.
The problem here might be that you're confusing me with someone else. I didn't comment on security detail in the first thread.
That's one way of interpreting it, I suppose. The wrong way. But a way.
American perspectives on security irrevocably changed with 9/11. We'd had embassy bombings, the Oklahoma City bombing, even the World Trade Center before, but it wasn't until 9/11 that this country truly said, "That's it, we're taking this gak seriously." A successful anniversary attack after 9/11 would be regarded considerably differently from 9/11 itself. People give Bush a pass on 9/11, because nobody thought anybody would try to pull anything like that off. We now live in a world where we know people will. Failures of our huge, expensive security apparatus aren't going to get a nationalistic response anymore.
No-one believes there will never be another security feth up ever again. You might be pretending that's true right now, but no-one really believes it. As awful as this event is, it's also not the first embassy bombing, nor is it the first US civilians to die in terror attacks since 9/11.
This is manufactured outrage.
Well, they did, actually. Jay Carney gave a briefing eight days after the attack stating that as far as they knew, it was not a coordinated attack, but was in fact a spontaneous uprising.
What in the how bout that swear filter eh ?!Reds8n do you think the words 'as far as they knew' meant? Why in hell's stretch pants do you think those words were in there?
No, I read it. It's just wrong. The OBL tape did not bury any chance Kerry had of winning that election.
No, you read it wrong. You read "bury any chance Kerry had of winning the election" as "Kerry lost in 2004 because of the OBL video".
Obama’s remarks pointed towards a premeditated attack, in contrast to the story the White House went on to tell for weeks.
CBS chose not to air that portion of the interview with President Obama, until now... not even in the days and weeks that followed, when it was highly relevant.
Figured this summary timeline might help. I don't claim credit for it, it's from a post on another forum:
Spoiler:
marrec wrote:
I think you're getting your chronology messed up, let me lay it out for you.
Hour 0:
Egypt starts things off right with violent protests that WERE about the video.
The embassy in Libya states that there are demonstrations due to a video and that the consulates been attacked.
Hour 1:
Romney says:
"I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It’s disgraceful that the Obama administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”
Day 2:
It's not until the next day that details of the attack on the consulate begin to emerge including that Stevens has been killed. Romney is asked if he meant what he said yesterday and he says 'Yep'
Obama comes out and says:
"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."
Clearly condemning the attacks as terroristic and promising justice for those killed.
Day 3:
An Obama spokes person says that many protests are taking place over the video, but does not say the Benghazi attack was due to the video.
Later, Obama ONCE AGAIN calls the attacks an act of terror:
"So what I want all of you to know is that we are going to bring those who killed our fellow Americans to justice. I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished. It will not dim the light of the values that we proudly present to the rest of the world. No act of violence shakes the resolve of the United States of America."
Day 6:
It's not until DAYS later than Susan Rice goes on TV to talk about the attacks. During this time she NEVER says that the attacks were just protests and even goes so far as to say:
"We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to — or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo. And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons"
So the official stance on Day 6 is "There was a protest that was hijacked by extremists" No, Rice did not use the word "terrorism" but it's absolutely implied.
Day 9:
Three days later National Counterterrorism Center Director Matthew Olsen says:
"I would say yes, they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy"
Day 10 (Sept 20th):
Finally it comes out from witnesses at the scene that there was in fact no protest at the Consulate proper.
I think there's a lot of confusion (still) as to what was said when, by whom, and with how much knowledge of the entire situation.
Obama’s remarks pointed towards a premeditated attack, in contrast to the story the White House went on to tell for weeks.
CBS chose not to air that portion of the interview with President Obama, until now... not even in the days and weeks that followed, when it was highly relevant.
Edit 1: dang... check out the comments... they're riled up.
"As I said, we're still investigating what happened. I don't want to jump the gun on this.
But, you're right that this is not a situation that was exactly the same as what went happened in Egypt. And my suspicion is that are folks involved in this who were looking to target Americans from the start."
Sounds like there was no official confirmation of anything when that interview was taped.
Yeah, I know, but again... why push that it's that anti-muslim film's fault in the subsequent days.
And that timeline isn't helpful... this is a really nice one from USATODAY:
Spoiler:
1:58PM EDT October 11. 2012 - April-June:
Several security threats occur against U.S. installations in Libya, according to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. They include an explosive device thrown over the fence of the U.S. consulate, an explosive device blowing a hole in a consulate security perimeter big enough for a large force to enter, armed men carjacking a vehicle with diplomatic plates used by U.S. officials, and the British embassy set on fire.
July:
An American real estate developer releases on YouTube a 13-minute trailer for The Real Life of Muhammed, an anti-Islam video.
Sept. 8:
Jamal Mabrouk, a member of the February 17th Brigade that provides security at the U.S. consulate, and a battalion commander meet with U.S. diplomats in Benghazi to say the security situation there is "frightening," he recounts to CNN in an interview after the attack.
Sept. 10:
Al-Qaeda leader Ayman Al-Zawahri appears on an Internet video calling for Libyans to avenge the death of Abu Yahya al-Libi, his Libyan deputy, killed in a drone strike in June.
Sept 11:
Egyptians attack the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, raising the flag of al-Qaeda in place of the U.S. flag. The embassy releases a statement condemning "the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims," in reference to the U.S. video.
News reports say the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, has been attacked.
GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney releases a statement embargoed for midnight condemning the attacks and criticizing the Obama administration for blaming the American filmmaker instead of the attackers.
The White House repudiates the original U.S. Embassy statement, saying it was released without proper approval. The Obama campaign attacks Romney for issuing his statement before an investigation is complete.
Sept 12:
Libyan Ambassador Chris Stevens is reported dead with three other Americans in the Benghazi attack.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton condemns "this senseless act of violence," saying some have sought to justify the attack and protests "as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet."
President Obama says in a Rose Garden statement that an investigation is underway. He condemns the attackers and in an allusion to the video he says the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, but all must oppose such senseless violence against public servants.
U.S. intelligence agencies conclude internally that the incident was a planned terror attack likely by al-Qaeda affiliates on the embassy in order to release resources to respond, according to reports from several news media outlets.
Obama is interviewed on 60 Minutes and defends his Mideast policies as aligning the USA with democracy, saying, "There are going to be bumps in the road."
Republican members of Congress say they are have been told by intelligence officials that the Benghazi attack was a well-planned assault timed to the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, not an anti-video protest gone awry.
Sept. 13:
Victoria Nuland, spokeswoman for the State Department, which oversees embassies, says State had evaluated the "threat stream" in Libya prior to the attack, "and we determined that the security at Benghazi was appropriate for what we knew."
Clinton issues a statement saying, "There is no justification, none at all, for responding to this video with violence."
White House spokesman Jay Carney insists: "The protests we're seeing around the region are in reaction to this movie."
Sept. 14:
The bodies of Stevens and three Americans arrive at Andrews Air Force base. Obama says at the base that the United States will "stand fast" against the violence, Both he and Clinton criticize the video for prompting the attacks. "We've seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with," Clinton said.
Carney denies the White House was aware of "any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent." "The story is absolutely wrong," he says. "That report is false."
Sept. 16:
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice appears on five Sunday talks shows and says the attacks were spontaneous eruptions over the anti-Islam video, saying, "This was not a pre-planned, premeditated attack."
President of Libya's general National Congress Mohammed Magarief contradicts the Obama administration, saying there is "no doubt that this (attack) was pre-planned, predetermined."
Sept. 17:
Nuland is asked whether the attack was a terror attack. "I'm not going to put labels on this until we have a complete investigation. I don't think we know enough," she says.
Sept. 18:
Obama appears on The Late Show with David Letterman and is asked by the host if the attack was an act of war. "Here's what happened. You had a video that was released by somebody who lives here … a shadowy character who has an extremely offensive video directed at Mohammed and Islam ... so this caused great offense in much of the Muslim world."
Sept. 19:
The first U.S. administration official to testify on the matter, Director of National Intelligence Matthew Olsen, says the Americans in Benghazi were killed "in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy."
A diary belonging to Stevens found in the burned-out Benghazi consulate by a reporter for CNN indicates Stevens was concerned about security threats.
Sept. 20:
Carney, when asked about Olsen's testimony, says it is "self-evident" that it was a terrorist attack.
In an interview at Univision Town Hall, Obama is asked whether the attack was the work of terrorists. He says his administration is still investigating the attack and cannot say for certain. "What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests," Obama says.
Sept. 21:
Clinton says at a meeting with Pakistan's foreign minister that, "What happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack."
Sept. 25:
ABC airs the television show The View, in which Obama is asked about Clinton's statement. "We don't have all of the information yet so we are still gathering," he says. He says there is "no doubt" that "it wasn't just a mob action."
"What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests," he says.
In a speech to the United Nations, Obama condemns the attacks and the American filmmaker, saying, "A crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world."
Clinton issues a statement acknowledging that an al-Qaeda affiliate in Libya and other Islamist terror groups "are seeking to extend their reach and their networks in multiple directions."
Sept. 26:
Libya's Magarief tells NBC's Today show that the attack was a pre-planned act of terrorism "directed against American citizens."
Sept. 27:
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says, "I think it pretty clearly was a terrorist attack."
Oct. 1:
Nuland declines to address reports that embassy officials in Libya were seeking additional security in Benghazi and denied. "I think it's fair to say that we are still working through what we have in this building in terms of documentation, in terms of information about what we knew, who knew it, when they knew it, and that's part of the process that we have to go through," she says.
Oct. 2:
Carney declines to discuss reports of requests from diplomats in Libya for more security due to the State Department's internal investigation, he says.
Oct. 10:
Senior State Department officials admit in a background briefing with reporters that prior to the attack in Benghazi there was no protest outside the compound. The briefing contradicts initial White House statements that the attack came during a demonstration against the anti-Islam video that got out of control outside the consulate.
It occurs to me that if people would surely get a lot more outraged over a security failure that couldn't stop a mob of rioters killing US embassy staff, than they would be to stop a dedicated terrorist attack.
I mean, if you wanted to cover up a security feth up, wouldn't you try to claim the attackers were organised, trained and planned?
Jihadin wrote: Someone mention something about 30 armed attackers. Pictures though doesn't support that.
Jihadin... does this jib with what you know of the military?
The father of the slain security operative also wants to know who gave the order to not rescue his son:
When I heard that there’s a very good chance that the White House as well as other members of the military knew what was going on, and obviously someone had to say, “Don’t go rescue them.” Because every person in the military, their first response is, “We’re going to go rescue them.” We need to find out who it was that gave that command.
Audio of the interview at the link.
Wha? Or, is this a likely a grieving father lashing out?
Its not good when you send a military unit uninvited into Libya (leave Iraq and Afghanistan out pls and stick with Libya). Military it seems is getting hammered for not being quick enough to rescue them.
Jihadin wrote: Its not good when you send a military unit uninvited into Libya (leave Iraq and Afghanistan out pls and stick with Libya). Military it seems is getting hammered for not being quick enough to rescue them.
That narrative doesn't make sense to me either.... thanks.
Jihadin wrote: Its not good when you send a military unit uninvited into Libya (leave Iraq and Afghanistan out pls and stick with Libya). Military it seems is getting hammered for not being quick enough to rescue them.
I'm more amused that the FBI still hadn't managed to get their luggage out of the attic and book a flight six days after the attack.
Jihadin wrote: Its not good when you send a military unit uninvited into Libya (leave Iraq and Afghanistan out pls and stick with Libya). Military it seems is getting hammered for not being quick enough to rescue them.
I'm more amused that the FBI still hadn't managed to get their luggage out of the attic and book a flight six days after the attack.
Who is to say they havn't?
The last thing you want to do is broadcast that you are going in.
Grey Templar wrote: The last thing you want to do is broadcast that you are going in.
That was actually one of the things the administration stated when briefing on the subject six days after - the FBI was investigating, but had not yet reached Libya.
one basic principle in military operations is not to jump into a situation without having real-time data. However, we discovered in the House Oversight hearings two weeks ago that we did have that kind of data; the State Department has 50 minutes of video of the attack from surveillance feeds that their command center watched in real time as the attack unfolded. Surely State could have had the Pentagon watch the same feed for the “real-time information” that we otherwise lacked.
Second, it’s difficult to believe that we weren’t collecting this kind of intel prior to the attack. There had been a number of attack attempts in the city on our assets. The New York Times reported that the CIA “got our eyes poked out” by the loss of the consulate. There may have been a lack of intel on the attack itself, but not on the threat. Ambassador Chris Stevens had warned State repeatedly of the security dangers before the terrorist attack that took his life — and let’s not forget that the attack took place on the anniversary of 9/11.
Finally, isn’t there a more basic principle at stake? Consulates and embassies are considered American territory. When they are under attack, the US is under attack in a very real way. When we are under attack, do we not defend ourselves and our people from attack, or do we only do that when the intel is solid?
I would like to think the US intel systems are quite reliable and fast.
If it were Russia or China, I could see them being hesitant to come to conclusions or say much given a sticky situation between nuclear powers. But this is Libya
The military was never ordered to act, and even the local CIA was ordered to stand down.
Stevens and Smith were literally left to fend for themselves, against a terrorist attack conducted by, what, 15-20 people (or more... still trying to determine), all armed, including with mortars and RPGs.
No "spontaneous protest" here at all...
I've wondered about the C130 gunship option before... It's the perfect plane for this sort of thing as it loiters slowly over a target and apparently they had some in the Mediterranean in range.
So... one guy was aiming a laser on a ground target and calling coordinates, painting it for a plane to see. To drop a bomb, to attack with very heavy machineguns.
But the laser itself is nothing, absolutely harmless.
So he sat up there on the roof, risking his life to paint a target with laser light, and no one bothered to send anything to hit that target.
Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later was denied by U.S. officials -- who also told the CIA operators twice to "stand down" rather than help the ambassador's team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.
Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was part of a small team who was at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When he and others heard the shots fired, they informed their higher-ups at the annex to tell them what they were hearing and requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to "stand down," according to sources familiar with the exchange. Soon after, they were again told to "stand down."
Woods and at least two others ignored those orders and made their way to the consulate which at that point was on fire. Shots were exchanged. The rescue team from the CIA annex evacuated those who remained at the consulate and Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack. They could not find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight.
At that point, they called again for military support and help because they were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied. There were no communications problems at the annex, according those present at the compound. The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Spectre gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights. The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours -- enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just 480 miles away, to arrive. Fox News has also learned that two separate Tier One Special operations forces were told to wait, among them Delta Force operators.
Watch "Special Report Investigates: Death and Deceit in Benghazi" on Fox News at 1 p.m. ET on Saturday, 3 p.m. on Sunday and 10 p.m. on Sunday.
A Special Operations team, or CIF which stands for Commanders in Extremis Force, operating in Central Europe had been moved to Sigonella, Italy, but they were never told to deploy. In fact, a Pentagon official says there were never any requests to deploy assets from outside the country. A second force that specializes in counterterrorism rescues was on hand at Sigonella, according to senior military and intelligence sources. According to those sources, they could have flown to Benghazi in less than two hours. They were the same distance to Benghazi as those that were sent from Tripoli. Spectre gunships are commonly used by the Special Operations community to provide close air support.
According to sources on the ground during the attack, the special operator on the roof of the CIA annex had visual contact and a laser pointing at the Libyan mortar team that was targeting the CIA annex. The operators were calling in coordinates of where the Libyan forces were firing from.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told reporters at the Pentagon on Thursday that there was not a clear enough picture of what was occurring on the ground in Benghazi to send help.
"There's a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking going on here," Panetta said Thursday. "But the basic principle here ... is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on."
U.S. officials argue that there was a period of several hours when the fighting stopped before the mortars were fired at the annex, leading officials to believe the attack was over.
Fox News has learned that there were two military surveillance drones redirected to Benghazi shortly after the attack on the consulate began. They were already in the vicinity. The second surveillance craft was sent to relieve the first drone, perhaps due to fuel issues. Both were capable of sending real time visuals back to U.S. officials in Washington, D.C. Any U.S. official or agency with the proper clearance, including the White House Situation Room, State Department, CIA, Pentagon and others, could call up that video in real time on their computers.
Tyrone Woods was later joined at the scene by fellow former Navy SEAL Glen Doherty, who was sent in from Tripoli as part of a Global Response Staff or GRS that provides security to CIA case officers and provides countersurveillance and surveillance protection. They were killed by a mortar shell at 4 a.m. Libyan time, nearly seven hours after the attack on the consulate began -- a window that represented more than enough time for the U.S. military to send back-up from nearby bases in Europe, according to sources familiar with Special Operations. Four mortars were fired at the annex. The first one struck outside the annex. Three more hit the annex.
A motorcade of dozens of Libyan vehicles, some mounted with 50 caliber machine guns, belonging to the February 17th Brigades, a Libyan militia which is friendly to the U.S., finally showed up at the CIA annex at approximately 3 a.m. An American Quick Reaction Force sent from Tripoli had arrived at the Benghazi airport at 2 a.m. (four hours after the initial attack on the consulate) and was delayed for 45 minutes at the airport because they could not at first get transportation, allegedly due to confusion among Libyan militias who were supposed to escort them to the annex, according to Benghazi sources.
The American special operators, Woods, Doherty and at least two others were part of the Global Response Staff, a CIA element, based at the CIA annex and were protecting CIA operators who were part of a mission to track and repurchase arms in Benghazi that had proliferated in the wake of Muammar Qaddafi's fall. Part of their mission was to find the more than 20,000 missing MANPADS, or shoulder-held missiles capable of bringing down a commercial aircraft. According to a source on the ground at the time of the attack, the team inside the CIA annex had captured three Libyan attackers and was forced to hand them over to the Libyans. U.S. officials do not know what happened to those three attackers and whether they were released by the Libyan forces.
Fox News has also learned that Stevens was in Benghazi that day to be present at the opening of an English-language school being started by the Libyan farmer who helped save an American pilot who had been shot down by pro-Qaddafi forces during the initial war to overthrow the regime. That farmer saved the life of the American pilot and the ambassador wanted to be present to launch the Libyan rescuer's new school.
Forget the "terrorist" vs. movie nonsense. If true, this is a smoking gun in that Obama specifically denied a request for more support. Thats very bad, but only if the MsM covers it.
Frazzled wrote: Forget the "terrorist" vs. movie nonsense. If true, this is a smoking gun in that Obama specifically denied a request for more support.
I was fairly certain that they were talking about a request for more security in general at that time. Of course that still did not match up with the whole "we asked to extend the extra security and they said no" which was excused with the "it got denied before it got to the White House, so we didn't know about it " hand wave.
Frazzled wrote: Forget the "terrorist" vs. movie nonsense. If true, this is a smoking gun in that Obama specifically denied a request for more support.
I was fairly certain that they were talking about a request for more security in general at that time. Of course that still did not match up with the whole "we asked to extend the extra security and they said no" which was excused with the "it got denied before it got to the White House, so we didn't know about it " hand wave.
Yes, indeed. I don't blame the WH if the WH wasn't involved as this is State Department stuff. But if something went for approval to the WH and was denied, thats a different story (why would it go to the WH anyway?)
Frazzled wrote: Forget the "terrorist" vs. movie nonsense. If true, this is a smoking gun in that Obama specifically denied a request for more support.
I was fairly certain that they were talking about a request for more security in general at that time. Of course that still did not match up with the whole "we asked to extend the extra security and they said no" which was excused with the "it got denied before it got to the White House, so we didn't know about it " hand wave.
Yes, indeed. I don't blame the WH if the WH wasn't involved as this is State Department stuff. But if something went for approval to the WH and was denied, thats a different story (why would it go to the WH anyway?)
Unless it gets mentioned in cabinet meetings I don't expect a lot of things to make mention in the White House. I think Obama doesn't have full cabinet meetings as often as Bush did though. Hillary taking responsibility was a good thing, although I'm not even sure the decision to decline the extension of security even made it to her desk. But good job as boss to take the fall for your people.
Grey Templar wrote: Maybe they were denied and decided to send a direct appeal to the president?
That would have to be some major string pullage on the part of the two guys lazing targets on the ground...
Which just makes it far less likely that they would have gotten any kind of support if they were lazing targets, since Benghazi isn't exactly downtown Jihadi Central. I can't see the authorization of any kind of laser guided munitions in those circumstances.
I just read that. If live time feed was happening and being viewed by whoever in DC it would take Obama permission to launch a military mission into Libya or enable military asset to be used (Spectre, drone strikes, whatnot) That mortar team should have been drone striked. I wonder though who kept denying the assist to the consulate from the CIA connex
Jihadin wrote: I just read that. If live time feed was happening and being viewed by whoever in DC it would take Obama permission to launch a military mission into Libya or enable military asset to be used (Spectre, drone strikes, whatnot) That mortar team should have been drone striked. I wonder though who kept denying the assist to the consulate from the CIA connex
Someone in the CIA structure, I don't think it ever got to the O man.
I'm waiting to see if any real evidence comes out of the Blaze's story that Hillary specifically asked for security at Benghazi and Barry shut her down.
Jihadin wrote: I just read that. If live time feed was happening and being viewed by whoever in DC it would take Obama permission to launch a military mission into Libya or enable military asset to be used (Spectre, drone strikes, whatnot) That mortar team should have been drone striked. I wonder though who kept denying the assist to the consulate from the CIA connex
This begs a question...
If the embassy/consulate was attacked... don't we do whatever to protect them? Even with Military assets? Isn't this technically an attack against the US?
Even if it was the actual Embassy, can you just send military assets into a foreign country?
Or are there some sort of agreements that get signed for stuff like that?
I'll go ahead and say I have no real idea. But I ASSSUME that inside the walls all bets are off, but I'm sure there's a ROE.so it's not shoot on sight either. I do know that no USMC embassy guards were stationed at the Libyan Embassy either, so who knows what contractors would do. Especially State Department security contractors who, you know, don't have the greatest record of restraint.
Even if it was the actual Embassy, can you just send military assets into a foreign country?
Or are there some sort of agreements that get signed for stuff like that?
I'll go ahead and say I have no real idea. But I ASSSUME that inside the walls all bets are off, but I'm sure there's a ROE.so it's not shoot on sight either. I do know that no USMC embassy guards were stationed at the Libyan Embassy either, so who knows what contractors would do. Especially State Department security contractors who, you know, don't have the greatest record of restraint.
I figured that anything inside the walls are fair game depending on local orders. Just wondering about military backing up outside of the embassy.
From what I understand, that may be untrue, anything outside the walls is the host countries problem. And if you say...shot someone outside the walls bad things happen. London 1984.
MArine Embassy platoon is kept inside the embassy itself to protect the sensitive areas of the embassy. They do not go combat mode outside the embassy building itself into the courtyard to the walls.
AustonT wrote: From what I understand, that may be untrue, anything outside the walls is the host countries problem. And if you say...shot someone outside the walls bad things happen. London 1984.
That's what I was kind of thinking, which would make it seem like it was a pointless exercise to paint targets with a laser. But I honestly don't know either.
AustonT wrote: From what I understand, that may be untrue, anything outside the walls is the host countries problem. And if you say...shot someone outside the walls bad things happen. London 1984.
That's what I was kind of thinking, which would make it seem like it was a pointless exercise to paint targets with a laser. But I honestly don't know either.
Here's what is confusing me... we're they CIA agents or Private Contractors?
If Private Contractors... can THEY even call in a strike?
How does that work? (not sure if I like that either...)
I'm reading between the lines but the guys in the story Jihadin linked were almost certainly CIAPM who can and do call for military support and strikes.
@dusa painting a target is like pointing a finger in IR.
It's a invisible way to signal to anyone overhead with IR capability, "look here" it's not always followed by a weapon.
We used to use our laser to point out escaping "squiters"from raids to ground forces. Painters or spotters are used more freqeuntly than you'd probably think, for mundane reasons.
AustonT wrote: I'm reading between the lines but the guys in the story Jihadin linked were almost certainly CIAPM who can and do call for military support and strikes.
@dusa painting a target is like pointing a finger in IR.
It's a invisible way to signal to anyone overhead with IR capability, "look here" it's not always followed by a weapon.
We used to use our laser to point out escaping "squiters"from raids to ground forces. Painters or spotters are used more freqeuntly than you'd probably think, for mundane reasons.
Thanks dude .
Now, next question... were they assigned to the Ambassador's security detail? Or, did they run to defend them during the attack?
The news is breaking today but there is a small bit that is being overlooked. According to the statements from Fox News:
The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Specter gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights. The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours — enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just 480 miles away, to arrive. Fox News has also learned that two separate Tier One Special operations forces were told to wait, among them Delta Force operators.
Everyone is reporting this but they are missing a key point. From the retired Delta operator:
Having spent a good bit of time nursing a GLD (ground Laser Designator) in several garden spots around the world, something from the report jumped out at me.
One of the former SEALs was actively painting the target. That means that Specter WAS ON STATION! Probably an AC130U. A ground laser designator is not a briefing pointer laser. You do not "paint" a target until the weapons system/designator is synched; which means that the AC130 was on station.
Only two places could have called off the attack at that point; the WH situation command (based on POTUS direction) or AFRICOM commander based on information directly from the target area.
If the AC130 never left Sigonella (as Penetta says) that means that the Predator that was filming the whole thing was armed.
If that SEAL was actively "painting" a target; something was on station to engage! And the decision to stand down goes directly to POTUS!
This is far bigger than Watergate.
The second worst feeling in the world has to be the platform crew being desperately asked for help, given a clear target and then having to stand down and watch your fellow Americans die.
The worst has to be the team on the ground knowing that the President just left you to die.
Jihadin wrote: I just read that. If live time feed was happening and being viewed by whoever in DC it would take Obama permission to launch a military mission into Libya or enable military asset to be used (Spectre, drone strikes, whatnot) That mortar team should have been drone striked. I wonder though who kept denying the assist to the consulate from the CIA connex
Someone in the CIA structure, I don't think it ever got to the O man.
I'm waiting to see if any real evidence comes out of the Blaze's story that Hillary specifically asked for security at Benghazi and Barry shut her down.
If it does Hill is going to come out looking like a saint, especially after formally taking the blame.
Maybe that was her game all along? We know Clintons don't do anything without their personal bottom line in mind.
Why I think Hillary literally step forward and took the blame for her Dept. In a nutshell I think she rammed a stiff one up Obama by taking that option instead of having Obama point a finger at her. Obama kept saying its Intell fault but no clarification on "why" its their fault. She cover down nicely on them by mentioning "subject to change" being mention on her intell brief. Well now I think about it. She covered down on her Dept and the CIA which made the WH look like a bunch of amateurs. State Dept no longer in the crossfire on who's at fault.....yummy on Vicoden
Read that that General Ham as head of Africom received the same e-mails the White House received requesting help/support as the attack was taking place. General Ham immediately had a rapid response unit ready and communicated to the Pentagon that he had a unit ready.
A Special Forces commander’s in-extremis force, or CIF, company. A CIF is highly trained in direct action and available to conduct no-notice high-risk missions for the geographic combatant commander its parent SF group supports.
General Ham then received the order to stand down. His response was to screw it, he was going to help anyhow. Within 30 seconds to a minute after making the move to respond, his second in command apprehended General Ham and told him that he was now relieved of his command.
The story continues that now General Rodiguez would take General Ham's place as the head of Africon.
/tinfoil on... seems awfully coincidental eh? /tinfoil off
A general being relieved of command as he was preparing to send military assets into a sovereign country despite clear and direct orders to the contrary?
d-usa wrote: A general being relieved of command as he was preparing to send military assets into a sovereign country despite clear and direct orders to the contrary?
I am truly shocked.
I think it is time to step away from the blogs...
Right... that's was my first thought...
Not sure if its true (as to the reason why he's relieved), just awfully coincidential.
Here's a question to those who've been in the service...
If you knew there are assets under attack (embassy, bases, supply lines, etc...) and that's ALL YOU KNOW, but you're getting repeated calls for help.
Isn't this the case of the old Marine's "Pick up your rifle and let's go ask what's going on?"
Automatically Appended Next Post: Still haven't found more info on this...
I know Division command is one year. Three year command slot though is right. for a "COM" slot. If I remember correctly...its a vague recollection...that the next step is Branch command or onward to JOINT CHIEF OF Staff arena....Pentagon "time" I also think is in there. There's only so many slots for 3-4 stars can advance to. Rodriguez though is a good replacement for Ham. I did two of my tours with his task force. His aide always use me to coordinate blackhawk time for him when I was running the rotary wing operation in RC East. Rodriguez is the type to get down with the troops and the aide did mention we always have good coffee in our OPS Center. So Gen Rodriguez popped in and we pretty much explain how we operate. three NCO's and four Specialist running the logisticals suppport for FoB's using rotary wing assets for RC East. This guy went out his way and got us Prime Rib via the SF.
Rear Adm. Charles M. Gaouette has been "relieved" to from the Stennis group in the Med. Same time frame as Ham. Both it seems are improper judgement calls catagory. I've a feeling its over the Benghazi incident.
Rear Adm. Charles M. Gaouette has been "relieved" to from the Stennis group in the Med. Same time frame as Ham. Both it seems are improper judgement calls catagory. I've a feeling its over the Benghazi incident.
Er... why would the Stennis group be involved with Benghazi? I can see Gen. Ham... but, the Rear Adm seems like something else is going on...
I think the Commandant of Marine Corp requested two carrier fleet in the Med at all times to support the surge in Afghanistan. 5th Fleet I do believe operates in the Persian Gulf.
Jihadin wrote: Because the carrier fleet is currently operating in the Med.
Oh... I must have gotten my carrier mixed then, I thought Stennis was in the Persion Gulf...
I think you're right actually. Stennis came from the Pacific (Bremerton in August to be exact) and arrived in the 5th Fleet AOR earlier this month. There's really no way she was anywhere near Libya in September.
It deployed four months earlier than scheduled in response to a request by the commander of U.S. Central Command, Marine Gen. James Mattis, to maintain two aircraft carriers in the Middle East. The Stennis replaced the USS Enterprise carrier group.
The deployment comes as tensions rise between Iran and Israel. Many consider it a strategic move to position the Stennis strike group in the Middle East to deter Israel from striking a nuclear-capable Iran.
Also besides 5th Fleet. The aviation wings of the Navy in Afghanistan can rotate their fighter/bombers out to either carriers in the Med/Arabian Sea as they approach their 100, 500 hrs inspections or maintenance phases. Operational Readiness of the squadrons are a priority. Also...don't flip when I say this. For their air crew and pilots to gain combat experience.
It deployed four months earlier than scheduled in response to a request by the commander of U.S. Central Command, Marine Gen. James Mattis, to maintain two aircraft carriers in the Middle East. The Stennis replaced the USS Enterprise carrier group.
Enterprise is in the PG, not the Med. So is Lincoln.
Just the one. Nimitz won't go for another decade, maybe.
Yeah 6th fleet only has a CBG when the fecal matter hits the rotar impeller.
It's almost as if we expect our allies to use thier own Navies in thier back yard.
Just the one. Nimitz won't go for another decade, maybe.
Yeah 6th fleet only has a CBG when the fecal matter hits the rotar impeller.
It's almost as if we expect our allies to use thier own Navies in thier back yard.
That list says the Nimitz is getting mothballed in FY2024, and is to be replaced by the third carrier of the Ford class
.........that damn troll...
Sorry, not all my synapes are firing today... 
