Durandal wrote:
Nate Silver is heavily biasing the polls to forecast an Obama win.

brettz123 wrote:
Considering most polls have the two candidates essentially tied (within the margin of error) how can one have an 82.9% chance of winning?

brettz123 wrote:
Considering most polls have the two candidates essentially tied (within the margin of error) how can one have an 82.9% chance of winning?

 Lt. Coldfire wrote:
All these bloggers who "analyze" are heavily biased towards someone. People are easily convinced, so you can't blame them for trying.

 Lt. Coldfire wrote:
What if Romney has Runes of Warding?

Durandal wrote:
\Given the disaster that Obama's presidency has become

 labmouse42 wrote:
Heh, it reminds me of the final game at BFS in the Iron Bracket I had with Mannahnin last month. He needed to roll a 6 on a run roll to win. He rolled the 6 and won.
Romney is the same way. Hes holding a dice and hoping he gets lucky.

brettz123 wrote:
Considering most polls have the two candidates essentially tied (within the margin of error) how can one have an 82.9% chance of winning?

Because of the way the electoral college works.

 labmouse42 wrote:

 Lt. Coldfire wrote:
All these bloggers who "analyze" are heavily biased towards someone. People are easily convinced, so you can't blame them for trying.

This guy predicted the Republican sweep in 2010. Hes pretty good with his analysis. Instead of discounting it out of hand you should look at his works first.

 labmouse42 wrote:

Durandal wrote:
\Given the disaster that Obama's presidency has become

....yea....because killing Osama Bin Laden was a disaster.
Getting the unemployment rate below 8% again was a disaster.
Ask Chris Christie is he thinks the Obama presidency is a disaster.

In all fairness, I suggest looking at other sources than Rush Limbaugh for the status of how Obama has done.

 labmouse42 wrote:


In all fairness, I suggest looking at other sources than Rush Limbaugh for the status of how Obama has done.

 Chongara wrote:

 labmouse42 wrote:


In all fairness, I suggest looking at other sources than Rush Limbaugh for the status of how Obama has done.

Why? Rush Limbaugh is one of the few honest people left in the media today, he's certainly the only one left with real american values.

 labmouse42 wrote:

Durandal wrote:
\Given the disaster that Obama's presidency has become

....yea....because killing Osama Bin Laden was a disaster.
Getting the unemployment rate below 8% again was a disaster.
Ask Chris Christie is he thinks the Obama presidency is a disaster.

In all fairness, I suggest looking at other sources than Rush Limbaugh for the status of how Obama has done.

 labmouse42 wrote:

 Lt. Coldfire wrote:
All these bloggers who "analyze" are heavily biased towards someone. People are easily convinced, so you can't blame them for trying.

This guy predicted the Republican sweep in 2010. Hes pretty good with his analysis. Instead of discounting it out of hand you should look at his works first.

 Lt. Coldfire wrote:

 labmouse42 wrote:

 Lt. Coldfire wrote:
All these bloggers who "analyze" are heavily biased towards someone. People are easily convinced, so you can't blame them for trying.

This guy predicted the Republican sweep in 2010. Hes pretty good with his analysis. Instead of discounting it out of hand you should look at his works first.

Indeed. No one saw the 2010 sweep coming. Good call.

Durandal wrote:
Given the disaster that Obama's presidency has become, we can only hope that he concedes before he is granted spawndom.

 labmouse42 wrote:

Durandal wrote:
\Given the disaster that Obama's presidency has become

....yea....because killing Osama Bin Laden was a disaster.
Getting the unemployment rate below 8% again was a disaster.
Ask Chris Christie is he thinks the Obama presidency is a disaster.

In all fairness, I suggest looking at other sources than Rush Limbaugh for the status of how Obama has done.

Relapse wrote:
too bad Obama couldn't have given the ones killed at the consulate any back up.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Relapse wrote:
too bad Obama couldn't have given the ones killed at the consulate any back up.

You realize teleportation beacons are only fictions, right?

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Relapse wrote:
too bad Obama couldn't have given the ones killed at the consulate any back up.

You realize teleportation beacons are only fictions, right?

djones520 wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Relapse wrote:
too bad Obama couldn't have given the ones killed at the consulate any back up.

You realize teleportation beacons are only fictions, right?

7 hour attack, fighters 2 hours away. Math.

An F-16 flying overhead and deploying flairs most likely would have been enough to stop the attack, or break it up long enough to get significant ground assets there.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

djones520 wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Relapse wrote:
too bad Obama couldn't have given the ones killed at the consulate any back up.

You realize teleportation beacons are only fictions, right?

7 hour attack, fighters 2 hours away. Math.

An F-16 flying overhead and deploying flairs most likely would have been enough to stop the attack, or break it up long enough to get significant ground assets there.

I used to live beside a military base where fighters do their training. No one, not even a child would mistake a flare for a threat.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

djones520 wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Relapse wrote:
too bad Obama couldn't have given the ones killed at the consulate any back up.

You realize teleportation beacons are only fictions, right?

7 hour attack, fighters 2 hours away. Math.

An F-16 flying overhead and deploying flairs most likely would have been enough to stop the attack, or break it up long enough to get significant ground assets there.

I used to live beside a military base where fighters do their training. No one, not even a child would mistake a flare for a threat.

djones520 wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

djones520 wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Relapse wrote:
too bad Obama couldn't have given the ones killed at the consulate any back up.

You realize teleportation beacons are only fictions, right?

7 hour attack, fighters 2 hours away. Math.

An F-16 flying overhead and deploying flairs most likely would have been enough to stop the attack, or break it up long enough to get significant ground assets there.

I used to live beside a military base where fighters do their training. No one, not even a child would mistake a flare for a threat.

Well I'm glad you pointed that out. I'll contact the Pentagon and tell them to stop using show of force tactics in Afghanistan because you said that not even a child would mistake them as a threat.

Let me one up your living beside a military base. 11 years AD Air Force, with 4.5 of those working in an F-16 unit.

Over a one year period there was more then 18,000 strike sorties in Afghanistan. Of those, only 1/6th of them munitions were actually used. The rest were show of force missions, ie low level passes over insurgents, deploying flairs, to scare the gak out of them and make them bugger off.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Happy it made you chuckle, but it's true that lights that essentially seems to hover in place do not constitute a very serious threat. It certainly wouldn't stop me from shooting my RPGs at a wall.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Happy it made you chuckle, but it's true that lights that essentially seems to hover in place do not constitute a very serious threat. It certainly wouldn't stop me from shooting my RPGs at a wall.

Mattman154 wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Happy it made you chuckle, but it's true that lights that essentially seems to hover in place do not constitute a very serious threat. It certainly wouldn't stop me from shooting my RPGs at a wall.

But how do you know? Can you honestly put yourself in their shoes?

 whembly wrote:
Yup... here's a nice twin timeline:



This is becoming a classic fubar event...

Mattman154 wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Happy it made you chuckle, but it's true that lights that essentially seems to hover in place do not constitute a very serious threat. It certainly wouldn't stop me from shooting my RPGs at a wall.

But how do you know? Can you honestly put yourself in their shoes?

“This is probably the biggest cover-up in American history – and you’re talking to an expert in cover-ups,” Thompson said. [heh...]

“There are three scandals here – before, during and after,” Thompson told about 40 people gathered for the AFP event at the Mariner's Inn in the Cincinnati suburb of West Chester. Citing the numerous incidents and warnings leading up to the assault on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi on the 11th anniversary of the 2001 terrorist attacks, Thompson mockingly asked, “What was your first hint that there might be trouble in Libya?”

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Mattman154 wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Happy it made you chuckle, but it's true that lights that essentially seems to hover in place do not constitute a very serious threat. It certainly wouldn't stop me from shooting my RPGs at a wall.

But how do you know? Can you honestly put yourself in their shoes?

Of course not. I'm no religious zealot bent on killing the representative from the Devil States of America. But the little I know about religious zealots indicates me that they wouldn't exactly be afraid of lights in the air. Or at least, that they would realize inside the minute that said lights weren't an actual threat. On top of things, the few pictures that I've seen of the event showed a few compounds around the ambassy, so heavier actions would probably have caused unnecessary casualties.

So you fly your planes, and drop a few flares. You buy, what, 5-6 minutes until the insurgents realize there's no actual strike incoming. They return. at best, you've bought a reprieve long enough for them to reload.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
I thought Monica was the biggest cover-up in the history of the US...

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
I thought Monica was the biggest cover-up in the history of the US...

djones520 wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Mattman154 wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Happy it made you chuckle, but it's true that lights that essentially seems to hover in place do not constitute a very serious threat. It certainly wouldn't stop me from shooting my RPGs at a wall.

But how do you know? Can you honestly put yourself in their shoes?

Of course not. I'm no religious zealot bent on killing the representative from the Devil States of America. But the little I know about religious zealots indicates me that they wouldn't exactly be afraid of lights in the air. Or at least, that they would realize inside the minute that said lights weren't an actual threat. On top of things, the few pictures that I've seen of the event showed a few compounds around the ambassy, so heavier actions would probably have caused unnecessary casualties.

So you fly your planes, and drop a few flares. You buy, what, 5-6 minutes until the insurgents realize there's no actual strike incoming. They return. at best, you've bought a reprieve long enough for them to reload.

No, IF they return, thats when your munitions go hot. A 500lb GBU is a precision weapon with a small enough yield to minimize damage to the local area. Even if you didn't catch anyone in the blast (highly unlikely given the sophistication of our targetting systems), at that point the attackers know we mean business and will bugger off.

 Ouze wrote:
So, Djones posted the awesome tactic of dropping "flairs" on rioters from an F-16 (at least 17 pieces is the bare minimum but they could do more). When called on this fascinating tactic, he then calls someone else an armchair general. Well done.

 Ouze wrote:
Please, for the love of god, someone start a thread titled "UN behind Benghazi attacks so they can steal US elections & Internet" so all we can funnel all the derp in there and lock all these other ones.

 Ouze wrote:
Please, for the love of god, someone start a thread titled "UN behind Benghazi attacks so they can steal US elections & Internet" so all we can funnel all the derp in there and lock all these other ones.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
According to the timeframe posted earlier, Obama was notified less than 2 hours before the body of ambassador Stevens was found. Even if you expected him to send fighters the second he was told about troubles at the embassy (which would probably earn him the title of Most Trigger Happy President of all times), he wouldn't have saved those lives.

Saying he signed their death warrants is a ridiculous hyperbole. I'll agree to the fact that the State Dept is responsible for sending these men in a obviously volatile situation without proper protection, but can you really blame the President for that? (honest question, I don,t know if he'd be made aware of such a request)

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
According to the timeframe posted earlier, Obama was notified less than 2 hours before the body of ambassador Stevens was found. Even if you expected him to send fighters the second he was told about troubles at the embassy (which would probably earn him the title of Most Trigger Happy President of all times), he wouldn't have saved those lives.(well, maybe Doherty and the other)

Saying he signed their death warrants is a ridiculous hyperbole. I'll agree to the fact that the State Dept is responsible for sending these men in a obviously volatile situation without proper protection, but can you really blame the President for that? (honest question, I don,t know if he'd be made aware of such a request)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
Please, for the love of god, someone start a thread titled "UN behind Benghazi attacks so they can steal US elections & Internet" so all we can funnel all the derp in there and lock all these other ones.

Exalted

djones520 wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
According to the timeframe posted earlier, Obama was notified less than 2 hours before the body of ambassador Stevens was found. Even if you expected him to send fighters the second he was told about troubles at the embassy (which would probably earn him the title of Most Trigger Happy President of all times), he wouldn't have saved those lives.(well, maybe Doherty and the other)

Saying he signed their death warrants is a ridiculous hyperbole. I'll agree to the fact that the State Dept is responsible for sending these men in a obviously volatile situation without proper protection, but can you really blame the President for that? (honest question, I don,t know if he'd be made aware of such a request)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
Please, for the love of god, someone start a thread titled "UN behind Benghazi attacks so they can steal US elections & Internet" so all we can funnel all the derp in there and lock all these other ones.

Exalted

I said it was a worse case scenario, I also said I didn't really believe them that much either. I was just pointing out what has been said about it all.

The fact is, something more could have been done, questions are being asked about why it wasn't, and the administration is stonewalling on giving any answers at all to them. Since this is coming from the most open administration ever...

djones520 wrote:
No, IF they return, thats when your munitions go hot. A 500lb GBU is a precision weapon with a small enough yield to minimize damage to the local area. Even if you didn't catch anyone in the blast (highly unlikely given the sophistication of our targetting systems), at that point the attackers know we mean business and will bugger off.

 Peregrine wrote:
PS: I don't know about you, but I don't think it's a very good idea to start dropping 500lb bombs on every anti-US riot we encounter. Perhaps you should review that pesky little problem where actions like that ensure that the next generation of terrorists will be determined to kill us?

 Seaward wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
PS: I don't know about you, but I don't think it's a very good idea to start dropping 500lb bombs on every anti-US riot we encounter. Perhaps you should review that pesky little problem where actions like that ensure that the next generation of terrorists will be determined to kill us?

There was no riot at the Benghazi embassy.

 Peregrine wrote:
Which we now know in hindsight. The kind of aggressive "just drop some 500lb bombs on them" response djones520 advocates doesn't leave room for waiting to see whether it's a riot or an attack, and would cause massacre after massacre after massacre.

 Seaward wrote:
Sure it does.

 Peregrine wrote:

The simple fact is that by the time you can be confident that you're facing an attack and not just a riot it's too late to start bombing everything.

 Seaward wrote:
You think there was no point during the seven-hour attack that it became apparent it was an attack and not a riot that got a little overexcited?

Why do you keep referencing an angry protest? There was no angry protest. That was just extremely bad information we continued to hear for a week afterwards.

 d-usa wrote:
Seriously, if a bunch of extremist rednecks decided to attack a Russian consulate inside the United States, and Russia decides to respond by sending a bunch of warplanes into US air space and maybe drop a bomb or two onto US soil to stop the attacks all the people advocating these tactics would be screaming for bloody war against Russia.

 Seaward wrote:
Sure. But you're missing some key points. We could actually do that to Libya without fear of consequence. The same would not be true with anyone else doing it to us. I'm not suggesting we'd go to war over it or anything - though we might - but that we're a pretty powerful nation you generally don't want to bomb. Libya is not.

International law is pretty irrelevant if the primary enforcers choose to ignore it.

Sure. But you're missing some key points. We could actually do that to Libya without fear of consequence.

 d-usa wrote:
In this thread:

People who claim that tactics used in active war zones such as flying F-16's around dropping flares and then bombs on insurgents are perfectly viable options for violating the international borders of a sovereign country.

Seriously, if a bunch of extremist rednecks decided to attack a Russian consulate inside the United States, and Russia decides to respond by sending a bunch of warplanes into US air space and maybe drop a bomb or two onto US soil to stop the attacks all the people advocating these tactics would be screaming for bloody war against Russia.

 Seaward wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

The simple fact is that by the time you can be confident that you're facing an attack and not just a riot it's too late to start bombing everything.

You think there was no point during the seven-hour attack that it became apparent it was an attack and not a riot that got a little overexcited?

Did you also live near a military base, General?

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Seriously, if a bunch of extremist rednecks decided to attack a Russian consulate inside the United States, and Russia decides to respond by sending a bunch of warplanes into US air space and maybe drop a bomb or two onto US soil to stop the attacks all the people advocating these tactics would be screaming for bloody war against Russia.

Sure. But you're missing some key points. We could actually do that to Libya without fear of consequence. The same would not be true with anyone else doing it to us. I'm not suggesting we'd go to war over it or anything - though we might - but that we're a pretty powerful nation you generally don't want to bomb. Libya is not.

International law is pretty irrelevant if the primary enforcers choose to ignore it.

Durandal wrote:
Nate Silver is heavily biasing the polls to forecast an Obama win.

Right now early voting tallies show Obama is behind in Ohio by a larger margin then he won in 2008. Romney is far ahead of McCain's totals for the same time frame.

Given the disaster that Obama's presidency has become, we can only hope that he concedes before he is granted spawndom.

sirlynchmob wrote:

Durandal wrote:
Nate Silver is heavily biasing the polls to forecast an Obama win.

Right now early voting tallies show Obama is behind in Ohio by a larger margin then he won in 2008. Romney is far ahead of McCain's totals for the same time frame.

Given the disaster that Obama's presidency has become, we can only hope that he concedes before he is granted spawndom.

I guess having his son buy large interests in the companies that run the polling machines is paying off for him.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
So 3 hours after the beginning of the attack the rioters actually disperse and then wait for 4 hours until switching to mortar rounds.

Dem flares would really have worked a wonder.

The Benghazi debacle boils down to a single key factor — the granting or withholding of “cross-border authority.” This opinion is informed by my experience as a Navy SEAL officer who took a NavSpecWar Detachment to Beirut.

Once the alarm is sent – in this case, from the consulate in Benghazi — dozens of HQs are notified and are in the planning loop in real time, including AFRICOM and EURCOM, both located in Germany. Without waiting for specific orders from Washington, they begin planning and executing rescue operations, including moving personnel, ships, and aircraft forward toward the location of the crisis. However, there is one thing they can’t do without explicit orders from the president: cross an international border on a hostile mission.


That is the clear “red line” in this type of a crisis situation.

No administration wants to stumble into a war because a jet jockey in hot pursuit (or a mixed-up SEAL squad in a rubber boat) strays into hostile territory. Because of this, only the president can give the order for our military to cross a nation’s border without that nation’s permission. For the Osama bin Laden mission, President Obama granted CBA for our forces to enter Pakistani airspace.

On the other side of the CBA coin: in order to prevent a military rescue in Benghazi, all the POTUS has to do is not grant cross-border authority. If he does not, the entire rescue mission (already in progress) must stop in its tracks.

Ships can loiter on station, but airplanes fall out of the sky, so they must be redirected to an air base (Sigonella, in Sicily) to await the POTUS decision on granting CBA. If the decision to grant CBA never comes, the besieged diplomatic outpost in Benghazi can rely only on assets already “in country” in Libya — such as the Tripoli quick reaction force and the Predator drones. These assets can be put into action on the independent authority of the acting ambassador or CIA station chief in Tripoli. They are already “in country,” so CBA rules do not apply to them.

How might this process have played out in the White House?

If, at the 5:00 p.m. Oval Office meeting with Defense Secretary Panetta and Vice President Biden, President Obama said about Benghazi: “I think we should not go the military action route,” meaning that no CBA will be granted, then that is it. Case closed. Another possibility is that the president might have said: “We should do what we can to help them … but no military intervention from outside of Libya.” Those words then constitute “standing orders” all the way down the chain of command, via Panetta and General Dempsey to General Ham and the subordinate commanders who are already gearing up to rescue the besieged outpost.

When that meeting took place, it may have seemed as if the consulate attack was over, so President Obama might have thought the situation would stabilize on its own from that point forward. If he then goes upstairs to the family quarters, or otherwise makes himself “unavailable,” then his last standing orders will continue to stand until he changes them, even if he goes to sleep until the morning of September 12.

Nobody in the chain of command below President Obama can countermand his “standing orders” not to send outside military forces into Libyan air space. Nobody. Not Leon Panetta, not Hillary Clinton, not General Dempsey, and not General Ham in Stuttgart, Germany, who is in charge of the forces staging in Sigonella.

Perhaps the president left “no outside military intervention, no cross-border authority” standing orders, and then made himself scarce to those below him seeking further guidance, clarification, or modified orders. Or perhaps he was in the Situation Room watching the Predator videos in live time for all seven hours. We don’t yet know where the president was hour by hour.

But this is 100 percent sure: Panetta and Dempsey would have executed a rescue mission order if the president had given those orders.

And like the former SEALs in Benghazi, General Ham and all of the troops under him would have been straining forward in their harnesses, ready to go into battle to save American lives.

The execute orders would be given verbally to General Ham at AFRICOM in Stuttgart, but they would immediately be backed up in official message traffic for the official record. That is why cross-border authority is the King Arthur’s Sword for understanding Benghazi. The POTUS and only the POTUS can pull out that sword.

We can be 100% certain that cross-border authority was never given. How do I know this? Because if CBA was granted and the rescue mission execute orders were handed down, irrefutable records exist today in at least a dozen involved component commands, and probably many more. No general or admiral will risk being hung out to dry for undertaking a mission-gone-wrong that the POTUS later disavows ordering, and instead blames on “loose cannons” or “rogue officers” exceeding their authority. No general or admiral will order U.S. armed forces to cross an international border on a hostile mission unless and until he is certain that the National Command Authority, in the person of the POTUS and his chain of command, has clearly and explicitly given that order: verbally at the outset, but thereafter in written orders and official messages. If they exist, they could be produced today.

When it comes to granting cross-border authority, there are no presidential mumblings or musings to paraphrase or decipher. If you hear confusion over parsed statements given as an excuse for Benghazi, then you are hearing lies. I am sure that hundreds of active-duty military officers know all about the Benghazi execute orders (or the lack thereof), and I am impatiently waiting for one of them to come forward to risk his career and pension as a whistleblower.

Leon Panetta is falling on his sword for President Obama with his absurd-on-its-face, “the U.S. military doesn’t do risky things”-defense of his shameful no-rescue policy. Panetta is utterly destroying his reputation. General Dempsey joins Panetta on the same sword with his tacit agreement by silence. But why? How far does loyalty extend when it comes to covering up gross dereliction of duty by the president?

General Petraeus, however, has indirectly blown the whistle. He was probably “used” in some way early in the cover-up with the purported CIA intel link to the Mohammed video, and now he feels burned. So he conclusively said via his public affairs officer that the stand-down order did not come from the CIA. Well — what outranks the CIA? Only the national security team at the White House. That means President Obama, and nobody else. Petraeus is naming Obama without naming him. If that is not quite as courageous as blowing a whistle, it is far better than the disgraceful behavior of Panetta and Dempsey.

We do not know the facts for certain, but we do know that the rescue mission stand-down issue revolves around the granting or withholding of cross-border authority, which belongs only to President Obama. More than one hundred gung-ho Force Recon Marines were waiting on the tarmac in Sigonella, just two hours away for the launch order that never came.

When that meeting took place, it may have seemed as if the consulate attack was over, so President Obama might have thought the situation would stabilize on its own from that point forward. If he then goes upstairs to the family quarters, or otherwise makes himself “unavailable,” then his last standing orders will continue to stand until he changes them, even if he goes to sleep until the morning of September 12.

 Peregrine wrote:

When that meeting took place, it may have seemed as if the consulate attack was over, so President Obama might have thought the situation would stabilize on its own from that point forward. If he then goes upstairs to the family quarters, or otherwise makes himself “unavailable,” then his last standing orders will continue to stand until he changes them, even if he goes to sleep until the morning of September 12.

So in right-wing fantasy world when a situation appears to be resolved and the president goes to bed nobody can wake him up? Not even a polite "excuse me sir, but the situation has changed completely and we think you might want to be aware of our latest update"?



And I have yet to see any kind of plausible explanation for WHY Obama would refuse to act. And no, "because of the election" isn't an answer because:

1) Attacks on the US are a unifying force. Why wouldn't Obama look at history and see how Bush benefited from a boost in popularity following 9/11 and turn the attack into his similar "9/11" moment? Why minimize the significance of something that could very easily be turned to his own benefit, and possibly secure his reelection?

2) A dramatic rescue operation makes Obama look good. "Yet again our brave forces have defeated our enemies and saved American lives", and another popularity boost just like the successful attack on Bin Laden. Assuming a rescue operation was in fact ready to go (and not just right-wing fantasy) and all that was needed was Obama's approval, why would he decline to allow it?

When you look at things from the perspective of the "conspiracy" and all of their actions seem completely opposed to what someone would really do in that situation it's time to take off the tinfoil hat.

 whembly wrote:

Hey... dude... I'm with ya...

It's just that this "drip, drip, drip" of information just doesn't line up. I just looks odd.

U.S. Offers New Details Of Deadly Libya Attack

by Tom Bowman
November 02, 2012 4:00 AM

Once a mob began attacking the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on the night of Sept. 11, officials in Washington, D.C., watched with alarm. Now, new details are emerging about their response to the deadly attack.

President Obama and his entire national security team monitored what was going on half a world away. Army Gen. Carter Ham, who was the regional commander for Africa, happened to be in Washington that day.

One source familiar with the events said there was a sense of urgency.

The consulate was burning, and Ambassador Chris Stevens, who was visiting the consulate with a small security team, was missing in the smoky chaos. For the next six hours or more, top officials in Washington watched and tried to send help as a second attack centered on the consulate's annex, a secret CIA base.

Officials say that U.S. forces from Europe and Fort Bragg in North Carolina were dispatched in an effort to help, but they arrived too late. Officials considered sending U.S. warplanes from Italy, but it was decided that dropping bombs would lead to civilian casualties.

Officials dispute a report on Fox News that there was a delay, a "stand down" for CIA operatives and Libyan guards to help those under fire at the consulate.

Could The U.S. Military Come To Their Aid?

The officials had little time to respond. There were no U.S. troops anywhere near the consulate, either in Libya or even in neighboring countries. So dozens of special operations forces and CIA guards from Tripoli were sent by aircraft to Benghazi, 480 miles to the east. They could not get there in time to help defend the consulate.

Ham, back in Washington, requested a military counterterrorism force from Europe. But they arrived in Libya the day after the attack and deployed to Tunisia two days later. A larger special operations force was sent from Fort Bragg, complete with their own helicopters and trucks. They arrived in Sigonella, Italy, too late to be any help. No American forces were denied by Washington, officials say.

American attack aircraft? An AC-130 gunship would seem to make sense. That's the lumbering black cargo plane, a flying battleship with three types of heavy guns and high-resolution cameras. It's often used to support special operations forces in tight urban areas and can zoom in on enemy forces. But there were no Spectre gunships in the area, officials learned.

Attack helicopters? None around. There were two Navy ships in the Mediterranean — the USS Laboon and the USS McFaul — but only the Laboon is equipped with a Seahawk helicopter, the Navy's version of the Black Hawk.

There were American warplanes based in Aviano, Italy, just across the Mediterranean, but they could not arrive in time to help with the consulate fight. When the attack began, consulate officials made an urgent call to the CIA guards at the nearby annex: We're under attack.

Was The Rescue Delayed?

The CIA official there organized his force and the Libyan guards at the annex. Some tried to find heavy machine guns to bring along to the consulate, about a mile away. One of the CIA operatives waiting to leave grew increasingly angry, convinced they were being told to "stand down" on two occasions, according to a report on Fox News.

CIA officials in Washington strongly deny there was any order not to mount a rescue mission. And the source tells NPR there was never an order to stay put. It was all about getting ready, not delaying. Within 24 minutes, the American and Libyan team moved out toward the consulate.

The convoy drove along an indirect route to avoid hostile militias, and the Americans and Libyans hustled along on foot for the last half mile, arriving an hour after the call for help.

The source said that surveillance cameras establish what time they left the annex and what time they showed up at the consulate. When they arrived, Ambassador Stevens was missing. He was carried to a hospital by looters, and later died there of asphyxiation from the smoke he inhaled while in the consulate's safe room.

The American and Libyan team loaded up the wounded and the survivors, and made their way back to the annex. They got lost in the maze of streets, and some militia members shot at their tires as they made it back to the annex. In Washington, there was relief. At the White House and the Pentagon, top officials believed the worst was over after the successful rescue mission.

The Second Attack

For several hours, there was a lull in the fighting. Then a second attack began, at the well-fortified annex. In Washington, the issue of attack aircraft came up among top officials.

The F-16 Fighting Falcons could come to the rescue from their base in Aviano, some officials thought. But there were no clear targets, it was decided. An unarmed Predator drone flew over the area, just before the consulate attack ended. But it offered only a "soda straw" view hundreds of feet below near the annex. There were no armed drones in the area.

Officials watched the grainy footage from the drone. It was hard to determine, among the hundreds of people, who was with a militia supporting the U.S., who was taking part in that second attack, and who was a spectator — people, as the source said, "watching a war movie in front of them." Sporadic gunfire added to the confusion about separating friend from foe.

Officials eventually decided they couldn't drop large bombs in a residential neighborhood.

A decision was made: no close air support, not even as a show of force that could possibly disperse the fighters. The Americans, and their Libyan allies fighting with them on the ground, were on their own.

At some point, the Quick Reaction Force arrived from Tripoli to help. Rocket-propelled grenades and mortars slammed into the annex. One mortar curled into the base and killed two Americans. The annex was never breached, and the attackers were fought off. The force from Tripoli helped move the survivors to the airport.

There was frustration in Washington that no more American firepower could be brought to help, according to the source. No more troops. No aircraft at all. If the Quick Reaction Force from Tripoli had not been able to fight off the attackers and evacuate the annex, there would have been even more casualties and perhaps more pressure to send in some type of additional American force.

In the end, four Americans were killed: Ambassador Stevens; Sean Smith, a U.S. Foreign Service officer; and two embassy security personnel, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods. Another 30 Americans and Libyans were wounded.

Obama and some of the same senior officials who huddled in Washington and tried to send them help assembled at Andrews Air Force Base three nights later to meet the four caskets.

 Peregrine wrote:
So your entire position on the issue comes down to "might makes right"?

 Seaward wrote:

My Benghazi complaint has always been the aftermath.

 Seaward wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
So your entire position on the issue comes down to "might makes right"?

No, more that right is irrelevant without might.

I'm not out for blood over the situation on the ground and who made what call, for the record. From what I've seen, the CIA got their gak together fairly quickly and tried to take care of business. I doubt air strikes would have been practical, and it'd take a while to get on the ground in Benghazi from Djibouti, though it theoretically could have been possible.

My Benghazi complaint has always been the aftermath.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

My Benghazi complaint has always been the aftermath.

Genuine question incoming : What aftermath? The lack of sanctions?

 Seaward wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

My Benghazi complaint has always been the aftermath.

Genuine question incoming : What aftermath? The lack of sanctions?

No, the week plus of telling us it was all a protest gone wrong, stemming from the YouTube movie.

Maddermax wrote:
The truth is far more likely that he was given mixed intel, didn't make a gut decision on no evidence (Which he could have, and he could have played it up for political points), but left declarative statements until more info was gathered. It makes no damned sense that he'd do it just for kicks.

 d-usa wrote:

People who claim that tactics used in active war zones such as flying F-16's around dropping flares and then bombs on insurgents are perfectly viable options for violating the international borders of a sovereign country.

 Seaward wrote:

Maddermax wrote:
The truth is far more likely that he was given mixed intel, didn't make a gut decision on no evidence (Which he could have, and he could have played it up for political points), but left declarative statements until more info was gathered. It makes no damned sense that he'd do it just for kicks.

The problem there is that there were plenty of declarative statements made by the administration, they were simply false - and demonstrably false at the time they were made.

According to the CIA account, “The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.”

djones520 wrote:
Some things to look at, Obama has the highest Unemployment numbers in over 60 years at his time of reelection. That doesn't bode well for him.

djones520 wrote:
He's in a statistical tie in all the polls. That favors the challenger.

djones520 wrote:
Benghazi is looking more and more like a snafu, while getting more attention, and that will do nothing at all to help him, and a lot of negative press on Sandy response will only hurt as well (whether or not it's justifiable).

DAaddict wrote:
Adding 50% to the national debt with a basic plan to add another 5 trillion. Good plan.

djones520 wrote:
Christie would say yes it was, actually he has repeatedly. Just because he walked down the beach with Obama doesn't mean he thinks he's done a good job of things.

djones520 wrote:
The unemployment rate is climbing again if you haven't paid attention to today's news.

djones520 wrote:
And kudo's to him on the Bin Laden thing, which would have happened no matter who sat in that office.

 whembly wrote:
I'm not saying he's wrong... just saying his modeling is "new" and he hasn't had enough "election years" to add sufficient rigors to his methodology.

It's all crapshoot.... I will not be surprise who wins.

But, whomever loses... it's going to be freakout time...

Relapse wrote:
Yep, those SEALs did a good job on Bin Laden

Relapse wrote:
I'd hope he's doing something good for the disaster victims with the resources at his disposal

 Seaward wrote:
We're basically rehashing a different (locked) thread at this point, so it's not really worth continuing. I'll just say, as I said there, that various intelligence sources have claimed they provided solid data on who hit the consulate within a couple hours of the attack concluding, and that information was almost without question available long before spokespeople stopped attempting to cast the event as a protest gone wrong.

I'll also say that I think both sides of the aisle would try to cover their ass in an event like this, so I don't regard it as particularly malicious, just disappointing.

Maddermax wrote:
So we have the CIA saying its initial official intelligence estimate was based on certain info they received, but was eventually shown to be incorrect, and 'sources' saying they had solid evidence of what went on ages ago, which which obviously didn't get to the CIA. I still don't see that reflecting badly on Obama, it was a CIA mistake, which happens, as I mentioned.

Also, you still haven't said why this is a problem, considering, as I said earlier, that it didn't change the US response in any way, and as such wasn't nearly an intel failure on the scales of 9/11, Iraq or a bunch of other incidents. It's still a non-issue.

 Seaward wrote:
So you'd be comfortable with the administration in charge of your country spinning a false narrative that makes themselves look better just prior to an election?

 labmouse42 wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
So you'd be comfortable with the administration in charge of your country spinning a false narrative that makes themselves look better just prior to an election?

Come on guys, lets be a little more rational here.

Saying that Obama spun a narrative for political reasons is as crazy as saying Bush knew there were no WMDs when he invaded Iraq.

Presedents operate with the best intel they have at the time. Intelligence gathering is not a solid science and takes time to get all the details.

Read the book Black Hawk Down to see a good example of just how much guesswork can be in Intelligence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu_(1993)

Were the FUBARs? Sure. Americans died to enemy terrorists. That means its FUBAR and needs to be addressed. The administration may be at fault for not taking enough precautionary measures. Sometimes it happens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Ladin_Determined_To_Strike_in_US

However saying Obama was malicious does not help a conversation. Lets be rational, people.

 Seaward wrote:

Maddermax wrote:
So we have the CIA saying its initial official intelligence estimate was based on certain info they received, but was eventually shown to be incorrect, and 'sources' saying they had solid evidence of what went on ages ago, which which obviously didn't get to the CIA. I still don't see that reflecting badly on Obama, it was a CIA mistake, which happens, as I mentioned.

Except said sources were CIA sources.

It's been pretty openly confirmed that the Benghazi consulate was largely a CIA operation; my understanding is that it was the main hub of the hunt for shoulder-fired SAMs on the loose in Libya. It was also the CIA that scrambled a team out of Tripoli to respond during the attack. The notion that they were unclear as to whether or not there was a protest is, frankly, laughable.

Also, you still haven't said why this is a problem, considering, as I said earlier, that it didn't change the US response in any way, and as such wasn't nearly an intel failure on the scales of 9/11, Iraq or a bunch of other incidents. It's still a non-issue.

So you'd be comfortable with the administration in charge of your country spinning a false narrative that makes themselves look better just prior to an election?

Relapse wrote:
Yep, those SEALs did a good job on Bin Laden

Much credit goes to the US SEALs for being bad-ass extraordinaires. Heck, remember what they did to those somali pirates who held US captains hostage? They sniped pirates holding human hostages from another ship on a rolling ocean. At the same exact time! US SEALs are amazingly bad ass.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maersk_Alabama_hijacking

Who ordered the SEALs to invade a nuclear nation and assassinate a known terrorist? Who ordered those SEALs to rescue those hostages? That was Obama.

 whembly wrote:
I'm trying to be rational... that's why I pushed that spreadsheet of the dual timeline earlier in the post. I hope you took the time to look a that... if you did, then at the very least the administration's response afterwards is suspect. How can you not see that?

 whembly wrote:
Not an apple-to-apple comparison

 whembly wrote:
But here's something you may have missed. The intelligence agency knew that it wasn't protest gone bad and it was an organized attack within two hours. There are briefing paper trails supporting that. The WH had this information. Keep that in mind when you juxapose the WH's reaction to the event. It doesn't add up...

 whembly wrote:
The whole thing just looks really bad. What got *me* angry more than anything was that right after his morning Rose Garden speach in 9/12, he hopped on the plane to fundraise in Las Vegas with Jay-Z and Beouncy.

 Lt. Coldfire wrote:

Durandal wrote:
Nate Silver is heavily biasing the polls to forecast an Obama win.

All these bloggers who "analyze" are heavily biased towards someone. People are easily convinced, so you can't blame them for trying.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
According to the timeframe posted earlier, Obama was notified less than 2 hours before the body of ambassador Stevens was found. Even if you expected him to send fighters the second he was told about troubles at the embassy (which would probably earn him the title of Most Trigger Happy President of all times), he wouldn't have saved those lives.(well, maybe Doherty and the other)

 Mannahnin wrote:
Which weighting, again? Isn't weighting done demographically (race, sex, age) rather than by party affiliation, since party affiliation is fluid?

carmachu wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
According to the timeframe posted earlier, Obama was notified less than 2 hours before the body of ambassador Stevens was found. Even if you expected him to send fighters the second he was told about troubles at the embassy (which would probably earn him the title of Most Trigger Happy President of all times), he wouldn't have saved those lives.(well, maybe Doherty and the other)

General Ham and admiral were removed from duty for trying to help send aid to those fighting. Someone sent a do not help order higher up, despite 3 calls for aid.

http://israelinsider.net/profiles/blogs/top-us-general-and-admiral-reported-canned-over-benghazi-actions-

If they were prepared to send aid in clear risk of their careers, its foolish to say he wouldnt have saved those lives.

carmachu wrote:

General Ham and admiral were removed from duty for trying to help send aid to those fighting. Someone sent a do not help order higher up, despite 3 calls for aid.

http://israelinsider.net/profiles/blogs/top-us-general-and-admiral-reported-canned-over-benghazi-actions-

If they were prepared to send aid in clear risk of their careers, its foolish to say he wouldnt have saved those lives.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

carmachu wrote:

General Ham and admiral were removed from duty for trying to help send aid to those fighting. Someone sent a do not help order higher up, despite 3 calls for aid.

http://israelinsider.net/profiles/blogs/top-us-general-and-admiral-reported-canned-over-benghazi-actions-

If they were prepared to send aid in clear risk of their careers, its foolish to say he wouldnt have saved those lives.

That's a horribly flawed proposition. That they were ready to violate the chain of command doesn't mean at all that they would've been able to actually saves lives.

 d-usa wrote:
Because shooting and bombing into a sovereign is a horrible idea besides all the "feth every other country if an American is at risk" frothing-at-the-mouth talk from the right.

Agree with the need to find out what all could have been done to prevent it.

Relapse wrote:
Better yet, the administration could have actually given the requested security in the time prior to the attack instead of stripping it away.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/10/27/U-S-Had-Two-Drones-AC-130-Gunship-and-Targets-Painted-In-Benghazi-But-Obama-Didn-t-Pull-The-Trigger

 Peregrine wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Better yet, the administration could have actually given the requested security in the time prior to the attack instead of stripping it away.

And, once again, hindsight is 20/20. It seems obvious now that security should have increased, but how credible was the threat at the time the request was made? Did it stand out at all from the other possible threats and places where security could be increased?

And, once again, there is no plausible motive for removing security as a malicious act.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/10/27/U-S-Had-Two-Drones-AC-130-Gunship-and-Targets-Painted-In-Benghazi-But-Obama-Didn-t-Pull-The-Trigger

So is there any legitimate source for this claim, or is it all from right-wing fantasy land sites with a long and glorious reputation of lying?

Relapse wrote:
The guy was a trained SEAL that knew what resources were available who revealed himself by painting the target. It was a 7 hour fight. The resources were available that could have made it.

Given the desperation of the warnings, this goes beyond saying hindsight is 20/20 and borders on the criminal.

I can already see Peregrines reply.

"So you're saying you don't actually have a source then?"

 MrDwhitey wrote:
I can already see Peregrines reply.

"So you're saying you don't actually have a source then?"

Relapse wrote:
I really don't consider left wing rags sources either, so it appears we are at an impasse.

Relapse wrote:
Tyrone Woods father, however came away from his meeting with Obama and Biden less than impressed.

 Peregrine wrote:

Relapse wrote:
I really don't consider left wing rags sources either, so it appears we are at an impasse.

You're right, left-wing tinfoil hat sites aren't a valid source. But what does that have to do with the validity of your claim?

PS: I'm the pilot of the gunship that was supposedly there. But we weren't there because we were diverted to be security for a Romney campaign event. If you elect Romney the terrorists will have won!

 Peregrine wrote:

PS: I was killed in the attack, and when I met Romney the next day I was less than impressed. If you elect Romney the terrorists will win again!

Relapse wrote:
It's pretty well known on any news source the fight lasted 7 hours, but let's leave that on the side, since we will never agree on that.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Relapse wrote:
It's pretty well known on any news source the fight lasted 7 hours, but let's leave that on the side, since we will never agree on that.

No it's not. The fighting occured for about 3 hours, then let go for 4, and then restarted for 11 minutes.

Relapse wrote:
Common sense kicks in at some point, where you don't strip away an important person's security, turning them into a huge and easy target for murder or kidnapping in an area crawling with terrorists, especially when they are giving reports of how dangerous the place is.

It's pretty well known on any news source the fight lasted 7 hours, but let's leave that on the side, since we will never agree on that.

No point in further conversation since you insist on acting like a moron.

 Cheesecat wrote:
I think this is a lie because if you're killed in an attack you can't meet Romney cause your dead

and also why would terrorists win if Rooney's elected?

Relapse wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Relapse wrote:
I really don't consider left wing rags sources either, so it appears we are at an impasse.

You're right, left-wing tinfoil hat sites aren't a valid source. But what does that have to do with the validity of your claim?

PS: I'm the pilot of the gunship that was supposedly there. But we weren't there because we were diverted to be security for a Romney campaign event. If you elect Romney the terrorists will have won!

Common sense kicks in at some point, where you don't strip away an important person's security, turning them into a huge and easy target for murder or kidnapping in an area crawling with terrorists, especially when they are giving reports of how dangerous the place is. It's pretty well known on any news source the fight lasted 7 hours, but let's leave that on the side, since we will never agree on that.

Here is the timeline of events, as provided by the senior intelligence official:

– Around 9:40 p.m. (local time) the annex receives the first call that the mission is under attack.

– Fewer than 25 minutes later, a security team leaves the annex for the mission.

– Over the next 25 minutes, the team members approach the compound, attempt to secure heavy weapons and make their way onto the compound in the face of enemy fire.

– At 11:11 p.m., the requested drone surveillance arrives over the mission compound.

– By 11:30 p.m., all U.S. personnel, except for Stevens, who is missing, depart the mission. The exiting vehicles come under fire.

– Over the next roughly 90 minutes, the annex receives sporadic small arms fire and rocket-propelled grenade rounds. The security team returns fire and the attackers disperse at approximately 1 a.m.

– At about the same time, a team of additional security personnel lands at the Benghazi airport and negotiates for transport into town. Upon learning the ambassador is missing and that the situation at the annex has calmed, the team focuses on locating the ambassador and tries to obtain information on the security situation at the hospital.

– It's still predawn when the team at the airport finally manages to secure transportation and an armed escort. Having learned that Stevens is almost certainly dead and that the security situation at the hospital is uncertain, the team heads to the annex to assist with the evacuation.

– They arrive with Libyan support at the annex at 5:15 a.m., just before the mortar rounds begin to hit the annex. The two security officers are killed when they take direct mortar fire as they engage the enemy. That attack lasts only 11 minutes before dissipating.

– Less than an hour later, a heavily-armed Libyan military unit arrives to help evacuate the compound of all U.S. personnel.

Relapse wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Relapse wrote:
It's pretty well known on any news source the fight lasted 7 hours, but let's leave that on the side, since we will never agree on that.

No it's not. The fighting occured for about 3 hours, then let go for 4, and then restarted for 11 minutes.

Let's see duration of 3+4=7hours from the star until everything was over.

Relapse wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Relapse wrote:
It's pretty well known on any news source the fight lasted 7 hours, but let's leave that on the side, since we will never agree on that.

No it's not. The fighting occured for about 3 hours, then let go for 4, and then restarted for 11 minutes.

Let's see duration of 3+4=7hours from the star until everything was over.

 Cheesecat wrote:

I think this is a lie because if you're killed in an attack you can't meet Romney cause your dead, and also why would terrorists win if Rooney's elected?

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

I think this is a lie because if you're killed in an attack you can't meet Romney cause your dead, and also why would terrorists win if Rooney's elected?

ಠ_ಠ

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
That's the only thing you realized?

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
That's the only thing you realized?

Well, I'm pretty sure peregrine is just being silly.

 d-usa wrote:

1) The ambassador knew what the situation was like there. He could have left and refused his post, returning to the safety of the USA. Or maybe he believed in the mission there and even without extra security there he was willing to continue towards the goal he was hoping for.

Maddermax wrote:


Strange, I can't find any reputable news sources carrying anything like this story, only right-wing circle-jerk sites like 'the blaze' and 'American Thinker'. That link you gave us has lots of wonderful conjecture, but about as much fact as a UFO magazine.

Meanwhile NPR has this pretty in depth article about what went on: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/11/02/164140811/u-s-offers-new-details-of-deadly-libya-attack

 Kovnik Obama wrote:


That's a horribly flawed proposition. That they were ready to violate the chain of command doesn't mean at all that they would've been able to actually saves lives.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
I'm not sure I understand why people think that these rioters would have acted differently if the security detail had been even doubled or tripled. They were facing a riot that contained, at least from the pictures shown, a few hundreds. Is there any indication that the terrorists behind the act actually knew the strength of the security detail, and that it factored in their decision?

 Kanluwen wrote:
Saying "Fox" is a reputable news station automatically invalidates everything you just said.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
I'm not sure I understand why people think that these rioters would have acted differently if the security detail had been even doubled or tripled. They were facing a riot that contained, at least from the pictures shown, a few hundreds. Is there any indication that the terrorists behind the act actually knew the strength of the security detail, and that it factored in their decision?

On top of things, mortar rounds were dropped. I think it's as likely that more security would have ended in more american casualties.

 Cheesecat wrote:
Well, I'm pretty sure peregrine is just being silly.

carmachu wrote:
So your answer is a boiled down version "she shouldnt have worn a shirt that short?" Because thats what its sounding like there.

No more then your flawed one. They were in better positions to see and do something then you as an arm chair general here on dakka. They apparantly thought they could do something.

carmachu wrote:
No more then your flawed one. They were in better positions to see and do something then you as an arm chair general here on dakka. They apparantly thought they could do something.

 Seaward wrote:

There was no riot. Please, please stop providing misinformation.

carmachu wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

1) The ambassador knew what the situation was like there. He could have left and refused his post, returning to the safety of the USA. Or maybe he believed in the mission there and even without extra security there he was willing to continue towards the goal he was hoping for.

So your answer is a boiled down version "she shouldnt have worn a shirt that short?" Because thats what its sounding like there.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
I didn't know I had an obligation to my readers. Riot, uprising, terrorist act, choose whichever one floats your boat. The word is simpler than '' a whole lot of pissed off people trying to kill your dudes in your base, hiding in the middle of other pissed of people''.

carmachu wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Meanwhile NPR has this pretty in depth article about what went on: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/11/02/164140811/u-s-offers-new-details-of-deadly-libya-attack

When they have been in the tank for obama, they have been ignoring the story. Those places you call "reputable" have long since lost that tag. Its not really strange at all. I wouldnt trust MSNBC at all. Fox is a more reputable news station then them.

 d-usa wrote:
I don't know if there still would have been an attack if there was more security. From the info provided it seems like there was a lot of recon done, so more security might have simply resulted in more attackers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

carmachu wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

1) The ambassador knew what the situation was like there. He could have left and refused his post, returning to the safety of the USA. Or maybe he believed in the mission there and even without extra security there he was willing to continue towards the goal he was hoping for.

So your answer is a boiled down version "she shouldnt have worn a shirt that short?" Because thats what its sounding like there.

"I like this dress, but it could very well get me raped. But it makes me look fabulous, so it's worth it!"

 MrScience wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I don't know if there still would have been an attack if there was more security. From the info provided it seems like there was a lot of recon done, so more security might have simply resulted in more attackers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

carmachu wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

1) The ambassador knew what the situation was like there. He could have left and refused his post, returning to the safety of the USA. Or maybe he believed in the mission there and even without extra security there he was willing to continue towards the goal he was hoping for.

So your answer is a boiled down version "she shouldnt have worn a shirt that short?" Because thats what its sounding like there.

"I like this dress, but it could very well get me raped. But it makes me look fabulous, so it's worth it!"

No it fething isn't. Women get raped regardless of what they wear, I wish people would shut the feth up with this ridiculous idea.

It's incredibly stupid to make comparisons like this.

 MrScience wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I don't know if there still would have been an attack if there was more security. From the info provided it seems like there was a lot of recon done, so more security might have simply resulted in more attackers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

carmachu wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

1) The ambassador knew what the situation was like there. He could have left and refused his post, returning to the safety of the USA. Or maybe he believed in the mission there and even without extra security there he was willing to continue towards the goal he was hoping for.

So your answer is a boiled down version "she shouldnt have worn a shirt that short?" Because thats what its sounding like there.

"I like this dress, but it could very well get me raped. But it makes me look fabulous, so it's worth it!"

No it fething isn't. Women get raped regardless of what they wear, I wish people would shut the feth up with this ridiculous idea.

It's incredibly stupid to make comparisons like this.

 d-usa wrote:
I don't know if there still would have been an attack if there was more security. From the info provided it seems like there was a lot of recon done, so more security might have simply resulted in more attackers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

carmachu wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

1) The ambassador knew what the situation was like there. He could have left and refused his post, returning to the safety of the USA. Or maybe he believed in the mission there and even without extra security there he was willing to continue towards the goal he was hoping for.

So your answer is a boiled down version "she shouldnt have worn a shirt that short?" Because thats what its sounding like there.

Yes, that is exactly what my answer is.

Because "I am an ambassador in a very hostile and volatile area where I know my life is at risk and I don't have the security I want, but I am going to stay here because I believe in this mission" is exactly the same as "I like this dress, but it could very well get me raped. But it makes me look fabulous, so it's worth it!" are totally the same....

If you are going to ask stupid question please have the courtesy to include the post that my answer was directed to before pretending I said stuff that I didn't.

 d-usa wrote:

The important thing is that suddenly we care about these kind of things:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karachi_consulate_attacks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Uzbekistan#Embassy_bombings

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-12-07/news/0412070133_1_residential-compounds-saudi-arabia-desert-kingdom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embassy_of_the_United_States,_Athens#Terrorism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_States_consulate_in_Istanbul_attack

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_American_Embassy_attack_in_Yemen

But hey, we care now.

Durandal wrote:
Nate Silver is heavily biasing the polls to forecast an Obama win.

Right now early voting tallies show Obama is behind in Ohio by a larger margin then he won in 2008. Romney is far ahead of McCain's totals for the same time frame.

Given the disaster that Obama's presidency has become, we can only hope that he concedes before he is granted spawndom.

djones520 wrote:
Some things to look at, Obama has the highest Unemployment numbers in over 60 years at his time of reelection. That doesn't bode well for him.

He's in a statistical tie in all the polls. That favors the challenger.

Almost all polls are being conducted innacurately, using voter numbers from 2008 to determine them, when revised work has shown that they are currently heavily skewing things in Democrats favor, by as much as maybe 6 points. So that means in a state that Obama has a 2 point lead, he may actually be down by 4 points. This analysis comes from Gallup, which leans slightly to the left the way Rasmussen leans slightly to the right.

I'm cautiously optimistic that Romney will win the election, but honestly it is to close to call.

djones520 wrote:
The unemployment rate is climbing again if you haven't paid attention to today's news.

 Lt. Coldfire wrote:
Indeed. No one saw the 2010 sweep coming. Good call.

 whembly wrote:
However, Nate's model has basically been tested twice. The '08 and '10 elections.

I'm not saying he's wrong... just saying his modeling is "new" and he hasn't had enough "election years" to add sufficient rigors to his methodology.

As I mentioned earlier... those CU professors taking a different modeling track by using primarily Market related data... and since 1980, their modeling accurately predicted the elections. Using that same modeling, they predicted that Romney will win... and win big (330 EV).

Relapse wrote:
Yep, those SEALs did a good job on Bin Laden, too bad Obama couldn't have given the ones killed at the consulate any back up.

I guess 7.9% and rising isn't 8% unemployment

Relapse wrote:
Obama is quick to take credit for Bin Laden, claiming he can affect events half a world away, but denies responsibility in our people getting killed over there when they could have easily been saved? Right.

 Seaward wrote:
Sure. But you're missing some key points. We could actually do that to Libya without fear of consequence. The same would not be true with anyone else doing it to us. I'm not suggesting we'd go to war over it or anything - though we might - but that we're a pretty powerful nation you generally don't want to bomb. Libya is not.

International law is pretty irrelevant if the primary enforcers choose to ignore it.

 sebster wrote:
You're completely balls the wall nuts. I mean, I think you really need to understand how crazy what you just wrote it - 'oh sure, it'd war if someone else did it, but we can get away with it so we should be happy to drop bombs on embassy protests that might be something else'.

Which is why it is very, very important that the primary enforcers uphold international law.

I mean fething seriously people, whether Obama or Romney wins, lets all just say a quiet prayer that Seaward will never, ever be anywhere near a position of real power.

 Seaward wrote:
I'm not sure what you're talking about, honestly. When did anyone advocate dropping bombs on embassy protests? There wasn't one in Libya, which is what we were discussing.

I'd love to live in this fantasy world where countries do not get away with exactly as much as they can get away with out of principal.

Does this mean you're hoping Obama's not reelected, by the way? Because the Osama raid is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Absolute violation of Pakistani sovereignty, illegal under always-nebulous international law, and the sort of thing not a lot of other countries in the world could get away with.

 Peregrine wrote:
I guess you haven't been paying attention, have you. Just to be nice, I'll repeat myself:

At the time when bombs could have been used it was unclear what was going on. Therefore, you have either two choices for your "how to use 500lb bombs" policy:

1) Use them carefully, in which case by the time we had a clear picture of what was going on and who should get the bombs it was too late to do anything about it.

or

2) Use them aggressively, with a loose standard for what counts as a "threat", in which case you will inevitably have bombs dropped on angry protests that, in hindsight, weren't a threat.


Unfortunately option #2 is what another conservative poster was arguing for.

The question wasn't "what can we get away with", it was "what is right". And the answer is that it's massive hypocrisy to complain about the (hypothetical) country bombing the US to protect their embassy while supporting the bombing of other countries to protect our embassies.

That action at least had a purpose.

 Seaward wrote:
No, I've certainly been paying attention. I was responding to someone who hadn't been.

I don't see that as hypocritical at all. Nor, incidentally, does your choice for president. Drone strikes (with attendant civilian collateral damage) have ramped up significantly under Obama, and have been his primary method of fighting the GWOT. What's wrong with striking targets within another country if we believe doing so protects Americans?

So if we'd been able to save American lives by bombing the attackers in Benghazi, would that have served a purpose?

 Peregrine wrote:

You were acting like nobody advocated bombing protests, I pointed out that another poster in this thread did advocate a policy that would result in bombing protests. Just because you personally didn't advocate it doesn't make those posts disappear.

The point is that you can't have it both ways. If you feel that bombing other countries to protect our interests is justified then you can't turn around and say that Russia bombing a protest to "protect" their US embassy is unacceptable.

 Seaward wrote:
I was acting like I didn't advocate bombing protests, which I didn't. Another poster - not you, I'm not sure why you decided to throw your hat into the ring on this sub-issue - responded to me as if I had. I've been talking strictly about Benghazi, which did not involve protests of any sort.

Realpolitik, my friends. Idealism's fun, but I think we should play in the right sandbox.

 Peregrine wrote:

And it's relevant to Benghazi because, at the time when the yes/no decision on launching an attack and/or rescue mission had to be made it looked like a protest. Hindsight is 20/20, but you can't judge actions taken with limited information according to the information we only had once it was too late.

Give it a fancy name if you like, but it comes down to "might makes right". Which I suppose is fine if your governing principle is "do what is best for me and ignore what is ethically correct", but I prefer to hold our government to a higher standard.

 Seaward wrote:
No, it didn't. This is why I have such a problem with the way the administration handled the aftermath. It didn't look like a protest. It was an attack, start to finish, and the guys on the ground knew it, which is why the secret squirrels in Tripoli were chartering a plane within ten minutes of being informed of it, and the other secret squirrels in Djibouti were rerouting robots.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
No, it didn't. This is why I have such a problem with the way the administration handled the aftermath. It didn't look like a protest. It was an attack, start to finish, and the guys on the ground knew it, which is why the secret squirrels in Tripoli were chartering a plane within ten minutes of being informed of it, and the other secret squirrels in Djibouti were rerouting robots.

There's only one problem there: chartering a plane is not the same as bombing another country. You can charter a plane and get an unarmed drone in the air on a 10% chance of the "protest" being a deliberate attack. You don't need convincing evidence since there's no penalty for being wrong, at worst you've lost a bit of money that you spent on fuel or airplane rentals. There's a much higher confidence threshold involved when you start talking about air strikes and the price of being wrong is massacred civilians, and the most plausible answer right now is that the threshold was not met. At the time when an air strike could have been used there was not enough confidence that one was justified.

Just look at it this way. Which is more likely:

1) The situation was a chaotic mess, it wasn't certain right away whether it was a deliberate attack and attempt to kill the ambassador (where an air strike might be justified) or a riot gone too far where the most likely outcome is smashing windows and other property damage (where an air strike would be a massacre of innocent civilians). By the time anyone had anything remotely resembling a clear picture of what was going on and where the 500lb bombs should land it was too late to do anything. That is, if any appropriate forces were even able to get there before the attack was over.

or

2) Obama, the president who is perfectly happy to brag about his credentials on killing terrorists, turned down an opportunity to win an easy popularity boost right before the election with a dramatic rescue mission, or at least some nice terrorist corpses to satisfy our need for vengeance. Even though he had nothing to gain from a refusal to act he did it anyway.



Since option #2 is absolutely ridiculous that leaves option #1: the ambiguity of "protest" vs. "attack" was too high at the time of the attack to do more than charter a plane and arm the local security guards.

 Seaward wrote:
I'm not sure what you're talking about, honestly. When did anyone advocate dropping bombs on embassy protests? There wasn't one in Libya, which is what we were discussing.

I'd love to live in this fantasy world where countries do not get away with exactly as much as they can get away with out of principal.

Over here in the real world, however...

Does this mean you're hoping Obama's not reelected, by the way? Because the Osama raid is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Absolute violation of Pakistani sovereignty, illegal under always-nebulous international law, and the sort of thing not a lot of other countries in the world could get away with.

 sebster wrote:
Really? Because you said this; "We could actually do that to Libya without fear of consequence. The same would not be true with anyone else doing it to us. I'm not suggesting we'd go to war over it or anything - though we might - but that we're a pretty powerful nation you generally don't want to bomb. Libya is not."

Pretending there is no consequence to poor relations with another country, any other country, is pretty stupid. Claiming it for a country with important natural resources and a key place in a highly political region of the world is really stupid.

I suspect this is because you think the only consequence of poor relations is conventional military combat. Which is basically why you probably need to read a lot more and talk a lot less.

That countries will push the limits of international law for their own gain is well known, but to pretend that means they ignore international law unless there are consequences is a crude, almost child like description of the world.

I recognise the complexity of issues in which a country, like Pakistan, has at best a grossly compromised intelligence service, and consider there to possibly be times when international law can acted outside.

Which, in short, means I think the Osama raid was probably for the best, but the drone strikes Obama has undertaken are most certainly not.

But I am also sensible enough to know that most of these things would continue no matter who was president.

 Seaward wrote:
I did say that, yes. I'll ask my question again, with the correction Peregrine helpfully made: where did I advocate doing that? Saying we have the capability to do something is not the same as saying we should do something.

What are some examples of regions of the world that aren't "highly political," out of curiosity?

You're correct, though, I should have qualified "no consequence" with "meaningful." No meaningful consequence.

No, it's actually pretty accurate. We are, for example, thoroughly engaged in doing just that on a daily basis. We're not the only ones, either. I understand feelings may be hurt by the notion that countries with significant diplomatic, economic, and military clout play by different rules than the ones without, but that's not unlikely to change.

So, just to ask the question again: I believe the US can get away with violating international law, and should do so when it's in our interests. Obama is actively violating international law because he believes it to be in our interests. Does this mean you do not support Obama, because you made it clear you hope someone with my view of the worth of international law never comes to power?

 sebster wrote:
Talking about it as if it were an option, whether or not you want to do it, is just stupid.

I did overstate how stupid you were being, whoops. But your position remains very, very stupid.

Seriously? You think North America is as political as North Africa. What about Oceania?

I mean, is that really what you're trying to make an argument over?

Really, you think dropping bombs on Libya has no meaningful consequence?

And I'll explain it again - there is a difference between balancing international law and national interest, and coming down on the side of national interest in a particular case, and believing there is no need to consider international law whereever you can get away with it.

The first is the basic reality of international politics, the second is what happens when Yr 9 students hear the term realpolitik and begin inventing an exciting, hard man world without ever bothering to actually read about how the world works.

 Seaward wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Talking about it as if it were an option, whether or not you want to do it, is just stupid.

I did overstate how stupid you were being, whoops. But your position remains very, very stupid.

We've used air strikes against people for a lot less than attacking our diplomatic outposts. You're welcome to think it's stupid, I suppose, but if you can't come up with arguments more cohesive than, "It's stupid! You're stupid! Everything's stupid!" I'm not sure what the point in discussing any of this with you is.

Sources who have debriefed the team that was at the CIA annex the night of the attack in Benghazi say that the CIA operators from the Global Response Staff, or GRS, were equipped with Mark 48 machine guns and had two types of laser capability. Each weapon had both a “passive” as well as a “visible” laser that could be used against the Libyan attackers.
.....
Fox News has learned the guns were fitted with PEQ-15 lasers. The “passive” laser is not visible to the naked eye but can help team members identify hostile forces when the shooter is wearing NODS, or Night Observation Device attached to their helmet. The visible laser system places a red dot on the attacker and warns the attacker not to shoot, encouraging them to flee the scene. U.S. troops often use the visible laser to scare children or other civilians who find themselves in the middle of combat activity. When civilians see the laser they often back off in order not to be shot.
.....
The CIA told the Washington Post’s David Ignatius that “the rooftop defenders never ‘laser the mortars’ as has been reported,” a reference to an earlier Fox News report. The CIA added the “defenders have focused their laser sights earlier on several Libyan attackers, as warnings not to fire.”
.....
U.S. military sources say that the second Predator was not armed even though it took off from Sigonella Air Base in Sicily after the attack began to provide back up to the first Predator which was at the end of its orbit and running low on fuel. US commanders say that in reference to the drones positioned at Sigonella: “Not all aircraft are armed. Ours are not.”

According to military sources, Libyan authorities have not given the U.S. military permission to fly armed drones over populated areas like Benghazi. However, for some time the unmanned aerial drones that have been watching Libya’s chemical weapons sites did have permission to be armed.

Maddermax wrote:

I think you missed this bit:
[url=http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/11/02/164140811/u-s-offers-new-details-of-deadly-libya-attack]
The F-16 Fighting Falcons could come to the rescue from their base in Aviano, some officials thought. But there were no clear targets, it was decided. An unarmed Predator drone flew over the area, just before the consulate attack ended. But it offered only a "soda straw" view hundreds of feet below near the annex. There were no armed drones in the area.

Officials watched the grainy footage from the drone. It was hard to determine, among the hundreds of people, who was with a militia supporting the U.S., who was taking part in that second attack, and who was a spectator — people, as the source said, "watching a war movie in front of them." Sporadic gunfire added to the confusion about separating friend from foe. [/url]

So they decided that dropping bombs onto a friendly country, onto what were possibly friendly forces (because there was no way to tell terrorists from Libyan allies) was a bad idea. That would have been a huge diplomatic mistake, undoing the good will that the US has garnered there with it's intervention and any chance the US could work with Libyans against terrorist groups, and igniting more anti-US sentiment in other countries, endangering more lives. Sounds like the right decision was made.

 daedalus-templarius wrote:
I think you should change the title of the thread if its all about Benghazigate, and not rolling 1s.

 whembly wrote:

 daedalus-templarius wrote:
I think you should change the title of the thread if its all about Benghazigate, and not rolling 1s.

It's not my thread...

Speaking of which... Buried Bombshell: CBS Video Shows Obama Refusing To Call Benghazi A Terrorist Attack...On September 12th:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50134495n

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Looks like the only other country where Romney is more popular than Obama is Pakistan... wonder what that says about things

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20008687

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 daedalus-templarius wrote:
I think you should change the title of the thread if its all about Benghazigate, and not rolling 1s.

It's not my thread...

Speaking of which... Buried Bombshell: CBS Video Shows Obama Refusing To Call Benghazi A Terrorist Attack...On September 12th:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50134495n

What a bombshell. Truly, this fascinating and as-yet unpresented viewpoint really this cracks the whole thing wide open.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Looks like the only other country where Romney is more popular than Obama is Pakistan... wonder what that says about things

 Seaward wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Looks like the only other country where Romney is more popular than Obama is Pakistan... wonder what that says about things

I hope it says we'll get another hilariously pathetic "I'm sorry, I didn't vote for him," picture campaign if Romney wins, a la Bush in 04.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Looks like the only other country where Romney is more popular than Obama is Pakistan... wonder what that says about things

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20008687

 azazel the cat wrote:
...Except that medical care you speak of is one of the core divisive issues this time around.

 Seaward wrote:
We've used air strikes against people for a lot less than attacking our diplomatic outposts. You're welcome to think it's stupid, I suppose, but if you can't come up with arguments more cohesive than, "It's stupid! You're stupid! Everything's stupid!" I'm not sure what the point in discussing any of this with you is.

I think they're all as concerned with politics as the other, yeah. I'm pretty sure you wanted to use a different adjective.

I think it's more realist vs. idealist, actually.

 d-usa wrote:
Those polls:



(text: "The choices we make Tuesday could have MASSIVE and PERMANENT effects on the charts on Nate Silver's blog!")

 sebster wrote:
That's kind of the issue here. I basically cannot believe that anyone can't see what is utterly ridiculous about bombing a crowd outside a consulate, while you're pretending it's a sensible course of action.

So really, what's the point? You like thinking what you think, and reality ain't gonna stop that happening.

No, my wording is fine. Everyone knows what is meant when the middle east is referred to as highly political. You can play an inane pedant game if you want, and maybe even pretend it means you're winning. Meanwhile, I just

No, it isn't. Realist is recognising international law has an impact, but that impact is limited by the tendency of all nations to push the boundary.

Making claims that international law has no impact because nations just do whatever they can get away with, on the other hand, is the kind of thing that sounds like realism to over excited teenagers.