Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Since my original thread died...

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/10/24/uk-usa-benghazi-emails-idUKBRE89N02E20121024

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."

Whoa...

If true, this isn't good.

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.

Might want to make the tone a bit more polite, K.

 Jihadin wrote:

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.

Naw... it's okay man... I'll respond.

 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....




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 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.

 whembly wrote:

 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?

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.

Newsflash:

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.

 Jihadin wrote:

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.

 Jihadin wrote:

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.

Pathetic.

Contract Security doesn't fall under the security budget. Contract Security funds comes out from another fund.

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.

Now that we're using the George W. Bush administration as a metric for the honesty in presidents, I can't imagine anything positive can continue here.

 Ouze wrote:
Now that we're using the George W. Bush administration as a metric for the honesty in presidents, I can't imagine anything positive can continue here.

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.

Interesting that people chose to quibble over the administration's use of a word when there are real problems in the world.

If we gonna dislike someone, the least we can do is come up with a better reason. Like skin color or something. /sarcasm