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.
2012/10/25 02:55:53
Subject: Re:WH Was Told That The Benghazi Attack Was A Terrorist Attack Within Two Hours
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
whembly wrote: And notice how Hillary has remained largely unscathed to this point?
From a political standpoint... that was an epic master stroke there.
Indeed, she probably saw the ****storm that would be generated by this and decided to fess up so she would look like the honest one when all is said and done.
Rather smart political maneuvering on her part.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/25 02:56:34
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
d-usa wrote:There is so much legit things to critizise Obama on, but the level at which Republicans are trying to stick certain things to him in desparation (how many things from 2008 are we seeing again?) is just sad.
I would personally like to see Obama be grilled about signing the bill for the NDAA. That would be a real issue to talk about.
What's the deal with this? The NDAA, as in the Nation Defense Authorization Act?
I suspect something like this?
American citizens on American soil can be jailed indefinitely without the right to legal counsel if suspected of being a terrorist.
Since 9/11 we've always had this, but in different form...
I think the issue is that it codifies this as an executive power to do this (rather than the Patriot Act which needed yearly Congressional approval).
Right? Yeah... that's a big deal.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2012/10/25 03:06:35
Subject: WH Was Told That The Benghazi Attack Was A Terrorist Attack Within Two Hours
RiTides wrote: Mann- I watched all the debates and Obama claiming that quote from the next day was his implying that that instance was an act of terror is a long stretch, imo... :-/
Didn't mean anything in particular by "admit", sorry if it offended for some reason.
No worries. He referenced acts of terror in relation to this incident, the day afterward. Just because some sources of intelligence said it was a planned terrosist attack shortly after the event doesn't mean it was a settled issue and all other possibilities had been ruled out.
I believe they didn't know for certain what the exact sequence of events was, and to what extent (if any) the attack at the consulate was provoked by the video. There was also clearly some association or confusion with what had happened in Egypt. I thought the President's words in the Rose Garden were appropriately clear about our reaction to the attacks, and if they hedged a bit about their exact nature, that was understandable considering the situation.
The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. We’re working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats. I’ve also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world. And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.
He's only "not admitting" it was a terrorist attack in an invented world in which the adminstration would be trying to conceal a terrorist attack.
They definitely messed up their communications with the public in the week or so after the attack. But I'm not clear where else we're seeing bungling or incompetence. They took responsibility for the failure in security at the consulate, and focused on figuring out what happened and bringing the perpretrators to justice.
Overall it does look to me like the idea that Obama is "incompetent" is a real stretch, aimed to undercut the indisputable fact that his track record on putting terrorists (specifically Al Qaeda ones) into boxes is pretty much untouchable. He's put the last guy who had the job way in the shade in that department; in half the time.
Adepticon 2015: Team Tourney Best Imperial Team- Team Ironguts, Adepticon 2014: Team Tourney 6th/120, Best Imperial Team- Cold Steel Mercs 2, 40k Championship Qualifier ~25/226
More2010-2014 GT/Major RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 78-20-9 // SW: 8-1-2 (Golden Ticket with SW), BA: 29-9-4 6th Ed GT & RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 36-12-2 // BA: 11-4-1 // SW: 1-1-1
DT:70S++++G(FAQ)M++B++I+Pw40k99#+D+++A+++/sWD105R+++T(T)DM+++++ A better way to score Sportsmanship in tournaments The 40K Rulebook & Codex FAQs. You should have these bookmarked if you play this game.
The Dakka Dakka Forum Rules You agreed to abide by these when you signed up.
Jihadin wrote: Four americans got opted out in Benghazi.Since the republicans are using those four lives that lost as a beat stick on Obama who for two weeks kept saying a mob did it that the republicans are wrong for doing it. I can see Obama is "The Chosen One" for some of you all.
No, it's about the incoherence of the Republican position on this. There's just shouting that Obama should have said it was terrorism earlier. Well, if he'd said it was terrorism in the very first second after the attack those people would still be dead.
For a while there was noise about requests for security being rejected, but then it turned out that security was for Tripoli, not Benghazi.
So at this point we're left with 'Obama didn't say words soon enough'.
It's stupid.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Day One Libya said off the got go it was not a mob attack.
And Obama chose deliberate language that committed to neither side, and continued to do so until they were certain. Because that's what competent statesmen do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote: The story is going around now that Obama wanted the attack to happen but that the Ambassador would be kidnapped. This is why the security was continually denied This way Obama could be a hero right before the election by saving tha Ambassador. Now they are on scenario 2 where he catches or kills the mastermind right before the election.
Sounds pretty tin foil, but damn, some people are believing it.
Not only is it tinfoil nonsense, its factually incorrect. The rejected security request was for Tripoli, not Benghazi.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: If Bush's administration had given public statements for days afterwards that blatantly contradicted their internal knowledge in an effort to downplay the seriousness of an attack on the United States in order to make themselves appear stronger for reelection, a lot of the folks in this thread would be having strokes.
Speaking of pathetic, that's exactly what I think of that level of partisan devotion.
There is no political capital to be gained from playing down attacks. Inventing that kind of stupid inside your brain can only come from partisan devotion.
Standing up and saying 'there's been a terrorist attack and America is under siege and I'm a strong leader and look at all these strong leader things I'm going to do' is, on the other hand, political gold. Stupid policy, but political gold.
Taking a middle ground, not committing to any position until the realities are certain, that isn't going to win votes, but is exactly what proper governance is about.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: So in other words, you're perfectly willing to admit that if we had a generic president, you'd find continued attempts to cast the Benghazi attack as the result of a non-existent protest for over a week after it occurred, despite immediate intelligence to the contrary that it was in fact an act of terrorism on the anniversary of 9/11, as rather fishy, but because we're not dealing with that 'hypothetical' and it's Obama who's the president, all is kosher?
The Party uber alles, comrades!
So when the reality of your little moral outrage becomes obviously stupid, you just start making up little hypotheticals and invent whatever stance you want for other posters, all to imagine that they must really be hypocrits.
It was OBVIOUS that he was trying NOT to label it as a terriorist attack...
Then he and the rest of his administration on the subsequent days blamed it on the riot/anti-muslim video...
He chose deliberately non-commital language, and waited for absolute confirmation that it was terrorism before committing to that. How are people not getting this?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: So you're fine with a president from either party attempting to downplay a terrorist attack to improve his reelection chances?
I'm not okay with people pretending that's a sentence that makes any kind of sense. Seriously, presidents facing external attacks get an immediate, and significant boost to their popularity.
Remember how OBL released that video in the lead up to the 2004 election, and the result was to bury any chance Kerry had of winning the election?
This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2012/10/25 03:29:36
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2012/10/25 04:20:29
Subject: Re:WH Was Told That The Benghazi Attack Was A Terrorist Attack Within Two Hours
sebster wrote: No, it's about the incoherence of the Republican position on this. There's just shouting that Obama should have said it was terrorism earlier. Well, if he'd said it was terrorism in the very first second after the attack those people would still be dead.
You need to start paying attention. Nobody cares when he used the word 'terrorism'. They care that his administration was using words like 'protest' and 'mob' and 'reaction to the film' long, long after it was clear to everyone else that those things had nothing at all to do with it.
So at this point we're left with 'Obama didn't say words soon enough'.
Well, sure, if you don't know how to read, I suppose that would be a reasonable conclusion.
There is no political capital to be gained from playing down attacks. Inventing that kind of stupid inside your brain can only come from partisan devotion.
Standing up and saying 'there's been a terrorist attack and America is under siege and I'm a strong leader and look at all these strong leader things I'm going to do' is, on the other hand, political gold. Stupid policy, but political gold.
No, that works at the start of a war, it doesn't work over a decade into it. "Oh my Gurr they surprised us rally to me!" doesn't work when people have been doing that for so long they don't care anymore. Then you're just the guy who allowed Americans to be killed on 9/11 again despite being aware of the realities of the world.
Taking a middle ground, not committing to any position until the realities are certain, that isn't going to win votes, but is exactly what proper governance is about.
I agree. I wish that's what they had done.
I'm not okay with people pretending that's a sentence that makes any kind of sense. Seriously, presidents facing external attacks get an immediate, and significant boost to their popularity.
Remember how OBL released that video in the lead up to the 2004 election, and the result was to bury any chance Kerry had of winning the election?
Wait, you think Kerry lost in 2004 because of the OBL video? Why do I bother responding to you?
2012/10/25 03:51:19
Subject: WH Was Told That The Benghazi Attack Was A Terrorist Attack Within Two Hours
Mannahnin wrote: They definitely messed up their communications with the public in the week or so after the attack. But I'm not clear where else we're seeing bungling or incompetence. They took responsibility for the failure in security at the consulate, and focused on figuring out what happened and bringing the perpretrators to justice.
I guess I just want to hear more of that- that they messed up in communicating about it.
What I heard even today on NPR was Hillary Clinton saying that "just because something's on facebook doesn't make it intel" or similar. I imagine we get Quite a bit of intel by those means now...
Instead, emphasizing that yes, they did indeed miscommunicate a bit after the fact, would take all the wind out of the sails of the "opposing" argument / people trying to stir up an imaginary scandal.
Thanks for the reasoned reply!
2012/10/25 04:09:52
Subject: Re:WH Was Told That The Benghazi Attack Was A Terrorist Attack Within Two Hours
It took almost two weeks for everyone to get on the same sheet of music. Read back up on security of Benghazi Seb. There were quite a stir before and after the event from the security contract company. The 16 man security attachment was run by an officer or was it a actual militarydetachment. Why were they removed? Actually it had to be a contract security team since no military unit was assigned (marines) to the consulate. WHy the Hell we're still using Security Contractors as embassy security. As for those about the cut in Embassy Security they need to trim down on their GS 14-15's since their doing double work. Security Officer...the ones that ensure encyption, sensitive items, sensitive documents and that goody secret fuzzy critter stuff was effected. Who ever was the contract oversight peeps need to get removed.
I can't imagine that the intell that Obama, Biden and Rice kept pointing at the movie as cause for a week maybe ten days was the main cause. If so those intell weinies need to get canned.
Right now the issue if the military moved fast enough in response to Libya wasn't quick enough or the fact a military strike was warranted is in this mix. Republicans are hitting the bottom for this angle and need to leave it alone. Example. A sniper fires a round. The platoon responds and return fire in the general direction of the sniper. Its a NO GO you don't start shooting back till the target is identified.....I'm all over the place...Vicoden and Lunesta kicking in.
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
2012/10/25 04:21:48
Subject: WH Was Told That The Benghazi Attack Was A Terrorist Attack Within Two Hours
I'm sure that we do have people in intelligence gathering agencies watching Facebook, etc--but that's not our sole source for intelligence and nor should it ever be. The information gathered from there is most likely collated with other information in such a way that it's used to essentially "make the pieces fit" into the larger picture. Intelligence gathering is not a "one source fits all" approach.
That said, it's very important that no matter the views the public may have...law enforcement and the government need to remain focused and approach the situation systematically with care and caution.
The media cannot be allowed to dictate the law enforcement analytical process when dealing with terrorism...which is what we saw in this instance.
2012/10/25 07:25:13
Subject: Re:WH Was Told That The Benghazi Attack Was A Terrorist Attack Within Two Hours
Seaward wrote: Well, sure, if you don't know how to read, I suppose that would be a reasonable conclusion.
So, this is actually about Obama not saying words soon enough.
Wow. I mean, I know elections throw up some stupid pretend outrages, but wow.
No, that works at the start of a war, it doesn't work over a decade into it. "Oh my Gurr they surprised us rally to me!" doesn't work when people have been doing that for so long they don't care anymore. Then you're just the guy who allowed Americans to be killed on 9/11 again despite being aware of the realities of the world.
So when Bush won a second term despite losing 3,000 citizens to terrorism... it was okay because no-one was aware of the realities of the world?
This is so stupid.
I agree. I wish that's what they had done.
Oh, okay. So now we're not only supposed to be outraged he didn't say words soon enough, we also have to pretend he originally said the opposite.
This is getting even stupider.
Wait, you think Kerry lost in 2004 because of the OBL video? Why do I bother responding to you?
I said "bury any chance Kerry had of winning the election".
You read "bury any chance Kerry had of winning the election" as "Kerry lost in 2004 because of the OBL video".
Stop being ridiculous.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2012/10/25 07:30:05
Subject: Re:WH Was Told That The Benghazi Attack Was A Terrorist Attack Within Two Hours
sebster wrote: So, this is actually about Obama not saying words soon enough.
Wow. I mean, I know elections throw up some stupid pretend outrages, but wow.
No, this is about the Obama administration saying words that were demonstrably false long after they were aware said words were false.
So when Bush won a second term despite losing 3,000 citizens to terrorism... it was okay because no-one was aware of the realities of the world?
This is so stupid.
I would recommend reading what I actually said next time.
Oh, okay. So now we're not only supposed to be outraged he didn't say words soon enough, we also have to pretend he originally said the opposite.
This is getting even stupider.
His administration said the opposite for quite a while. I apologize if the facts don't work to help establish your narrative, but I presume that, as before, such obstacles will not greatly impede you.
I said "bury any chance Kerry had of winning the election".
You read "bury any chance Kerry had of winning the election" as "Kerry lost in 2004 because of the OBL video".
Stop being ridiculous.
The point is that Kerry buried any chance Kerry had of winning the election.
2012/10/25 07:45:03
Subject: Re:WH Was Told That The Benghazi Attack Was A Terrorist Attack Within Two Hours
Seaward wrote: No, this is about the Obama administration saying words that were demonstrably false long after they were aware said words were false.
But he didn't commit to anything. All the language used was carefully chosen to sound like he was saying stuff, without saying anything. Because they were still trying to figure out what was going on.
I would recommend reading what I actually said next time.
I did. You said 'you're just the guy who allowed Americans to be killed on 9/11 again despite being aware of the realities of the world."
Now, Bush's numbers improved after they suffered the attack in 2001. The only way that makes sense is if we assume Bush is let off because he wasn't aware of the realities of the world.
His administration said the opposite for quite a while. I apologize if the facts don't work to help establish your narrative, but I presume that, as before, such obstacles will not greatly impede you.
They didn't say the opposite. They just didn't commit to any position.
The point is that Kerry buried any chance Kerry had of winning the election.
And that's a point that, while certainly true, makes exactly zero sense as a response to what I wrote. Because, obviously, you failed to read my comment.
I wonder if that same failure in reading comprehension has caused the problem you're now having with Obama's comments after the Benghazi attack?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/25 07:46:06
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2012/10/25 08:02:19
Subject: Re:WH Was Told That The Benghazi Attack Was A Terrorist Attack Within Two Hours
sebster wrote: But he didn't commit to anything. All the language used was carefully chosen to sound like he was saying stuff, without saying anything. Because they were still trying to figure out what was going on.
I don't know how many times I need to tell you that my dissatisfaction is not with the Rose Garden speech. I really don't. Other members of the administration were talking for a week afterwards about stuff that simply did not happen. Answering questions and providing briefings with information confirmed false the day of the attack. Carney, Rice, Clinton...I swear, I'm having flashbacks to the original Benghazi thread where you repeatedly called me an idiot for saying that the ambassador wouldn't be protected just by some half-ass Libyan militiamen, but would in fact have DSS or contractor security. Some of this stuff is just so self-evident I'm not entirely sure how you can avoid acknowledging it save through sheer force of will.
I did. You said 'you're just the guy who allowed Americans to be killed on 9/11 again despite being aware of the realities of the world."
Now, Bush's numbers improved after they suffered the attack in 2001. The only way that makes sense is if we assume Bush is let off because he wasn't aware of the realities of the world.
That's one way of interpreting it, I suppose. The wrong way. But a way.
American perspectives on security irrevocably changed with 9/11. We'd had embassy bombings, the Oklahoma City bombing, even the World Trade Center before, but it wasn't until 9/11 that this country truly said, "That's it, we're taking this gak seriously." A successful anniversary attack after 9/11 would be regarded considerably differently from 9/11 itself. People give Bush a pass on 9/11, because nobody thought anybody would try to pull anything like that off. We now live in a world where we know people will. Failures of our huge, expensive security apparatus aren't going to get a nationalistic response anymore.
They didn't say the opposite. They just didn't commit to any position.
Well, they did, actually. Jay Carney gave a briefing eight days after the attack stating that as far as they knew, it was not a coordinated attack, but was in fact a spontaneous uprising. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice did the same thing, to the point where the State Department actually had to come out several days later and say they had no idea why she had said that. Those are not the only examples.
You can continue to insist that the administration did not have a 'spontaneous, unplanned uprising over the insulting film' narrative going well after intelligence sources had already confirmed to the media that this wasn't the case, but unfortunately you just don't have any facts to back you up.
And that's a point that, while certainly true, makes exactly zero sense as a response to what I wrote. Because, obviously, you failed to read my comment.
No, I read it. It's just wrong. The OBL tape did not bury any chance Kerry had of winning that election.
2012/10/25 08:39:44
Subject: Re:WH Was Told That The Benghazi Attack Was A Terrorist Attack Within Two Hours
Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.
Not good for Obama, Biden and Rice. Only one coming out of this not damage is Hillary.
No. Why would it? It takes times for things across the world to happen and get to the three people up top. And that they can't release info on the first word they hear, because a lot of the time the information coming through is not true or irrelevant. Obama, Biden and Rice needed time to processes the information that was given to them and then decide on how they would address the public.
So, wrong.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/10/25 08:40:12
Banished, from my own homeland. And now you dare enter my realm?... you are not prepared.
dogma wrote:Did she at least have a nice rack?
Love it! Play Chaos Dwarfs, Dwarfs, Brets and British FoW (Canadian Rifle and Armoured)
2012/10/25 09:11:44
Subject: Re:WH Was Told That The Benghazi Attack Was A Terrorist Attack Within Two Hours
Seaward wrote: I don't know how many times I need to tell you that my dissatisfaction is not with the Rose Garden speech. I really don't. Other members of the administration were talking for a week afterwards about stuff that simply did not happen. Answering questions and providing briefings with information confirmed false the day of the attack. Carney, Rice, Clinton...I swear, I'm having flashbacks to the original Benghazi thread where you repeatedly called me an idiot for saying that the ambassador wouldn't be protected just by some half-ass Libyan militiamen, but would in fact have DSS or contractor security. Some of this stuff is just so self-evident I'm not entirely sure how you can avoid acknowledging it save through sheer force of will.
The problem here might be that you're confusing me with someone else. I didn't comment on security detail in the first thread.
That's one way of interpreting it, I suppose. The wrong way. But a way.
American perspectives on security irrevocably changed with 9/11. We'd had embassy bombings, the Oklahoma City bombing, even the World Trade Center before, but it wasn't until 9/11 that this country truly said, "That's it, we're taking this gak seriously." A successful anniversary attack after 9/11 would be regarded considerably differently from 9/11 itself. People give Bush a pass on 9/11, because nobody thought anybody would try to pull anything like that off. We now live in a world where we know people will. Failures of our huge, expensive security apparatus aren't going to get a nationalistic response anymore.
No-one believes there will never be another security feth up ever again. You might be pretending that's true right now, but no-one really believes it. As awful as this event is, it's also not the first embassy bombing, nor is it the first US civilians to die in terror attacks since 9/11.
This is manufactured outrage.
Well, they did, actually. Jay Carney gave a briefing eight days after the attack stating that as far as they knew, it was not a coordinated attack, but was in fact a spontaneous uprising.
What in the how bout that swear filter eh ?!Reds8n do you think the words 'as far as they knew' meant? Why in hell's stretch pants do you think those words were in there?
No, I read it. It's just wrong. The OBL tape did not bury any chance Kerry had of winning that election.
No, you read it wrong. You read "bury any chance Kerry had of winning the election" as "Kerry lost in 2004 because of the OBL video".
They are the exact quotes. You got it wrong.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/25 09:18:35
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2012/10/25 09:18:55
Subject: Re:WH Was Told That The Benghazi Attack Was A Terrorist Attack Within Two Hours
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
2012/10/25 19:08:14
Subject: Re:WH Was Told That The Benghazi Attack Was A Terrorist Attack Within Two Hours
Obama’s remarks pointed towards a premeditated attack, in contrast to the story the White House went on to tell for weeks.
CBS chose not to air that portion of the interview with President Obama, until now... not even in the days and weeks that followed, when it was highly relevant.
Figured this summary timeline might help. I don't claim credit for it, it's from a post on another forum:
Spoiler:
marrec wrote:
I think you're getting your chronology messed up, let me lay it out for you.
Hour 0:
Egypt starts things off right with violent protests that WERE about the video.
The embassy in Libya states that there are demonstrations due to a video and that the consulates been attacked.
Hour 1:
Romney says:
"I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It’s disgraceful that the Obama administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”
Day 2:
It's not until the next day that details of the attack on the consulate begin to emerge including that Stevens has been killed. Romney is asked if he meant what he said yesterday and he says 'Yep'
Obama comes out and says:
"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."
Clearly condemning the attacks as terroristic and promising justice for those killed.
Day 3:
An Obama spokes person says that many protests are taking place over the video, but does not say the Benghazi attack was due to the video.
Later, Obama ONCE AGAIN calls the attacks an act of terror:
"So what I want all of you to know is that we are going to bring those who killed our fellow Americans to justice. I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished. It will not dim the light of the values that we proudly present to the rest of the world. No act of violence shakes the resolve of the United States of America."
Day 6:
It's not until DAYS later than Susan Rice goes on TV to talk about the attacks. During this time she NEVER says that the attacks were just protests and even goes so far as to say:
"We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to — or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo. And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons"
So the official stance on Day 6 is "There was a protest that was hijacked by extremists" No, Rice did not use the word "terrorism" but it's absolutely implied.
Day 9:
Three days later National Counterterrorism Center Director Matthew Olsen says:
"I would say yes, they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy"
Day 10 (Sept 20th):
Finally it comes out from witnesses at the scene that there was in fact no protest at the Consulate proper.
I think there's a lot of confusion (still) as to what was said when, by whom, and with how much knowledge of the entire situation.
Obama’s remarks pointed towards a premeditated attack, in contrast to the story the White House went on to tell for weeks.
CBS chose not to air that portion of the interview with President Obama, until now... not even in the days and weeks that followed, when it was highly relevant.
Edit 1: dang... check out the comments... they're riled up.
"As I said, we're still investigating what happened. I don't want to jump the gun on this.
But, you're right that this is not a situation that was exactly the same as what went happened in Egypt. And my suspicion is that are folks involved in this who were looking to target Americans from the start."
Sounds like there was no official confirmation of anything when that interview was taped.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/25 19:33:45
2012/10/25 19:45:38
Subject: Re:WH Was Told That The Benghazi Attack Was A Terrorist Attack Within Two Hours
Yeah, I know, but again... why push that it's that anti-muslim film's fault in the subsequent days.
And that timeline isn't helpful... this is a really nice one from USATODAY:
Spoiler:
1:58PM EDT October 11. 2012 - April-June:
Several security threats occur against U.S. installations in Libya, according to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. They include an explosive device thrown over the fence of the U.S. consulate, an explosive device blowing a hole in a consulate security perimeter big enough for a large force to enter, armed men carjacking a vehicle with diplomatic plates used by U.S. officials, and the British embassy set on fire.
July:
An American real estate developer releases on YouTube a 13-minute trailer for The Real Life of Muhammed, an anti-Islam video.
Sept. 8:
Jamal Mabrouk, a member of the February 17th Brigade that provides security at the U.S. consulate, and a battalion commander meet with U.S. diplomats in Benghazi to say the security situation there is "frightening," he recounts to CNN in an interview after the attack.
Sept. 10:
Al-Qaeda leader Ayman Al-Zawahri appears on an Internet video calling for Libyans to avenge the death of Abu Yahya al-Libi, his Libyan deputy, killed in a drone strike in June.
Sept 11:
Egyptians attack the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, raising the flag of al-Qaeda in place of the U.S. flag. The embassy releases a statement condemning "the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims," in reference to the U.S. video.
News reports say the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, has been attacked.
GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney releases a statement embargoed for midnight condemning the attacks and criticizing the Obama administration for blaming the American filmmaker instead of the attackers.
The White House repudiates the original U.S. Embassy statement, saying it was released without proper approval. The Obama campaign attacks Romney for issuing his statement before an investigation is complete.
Sept 12:
Libyan Ambassador Chris Stevens is reported dead with three other Americans in the Benghazi attack.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton condemns "this senseless act of violence," saying some have sought to justify the attack and protests "as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet."
President Obama says in a Rose Garden statement that an investigation is underway. He condemns the attackers and in an allusion to the video he says the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, but all must oppose such senseless violence against public servants.
U.S. intelligence agencies conclude internally that the incident was a planned terror attack likely by al-Qaeda affiliates on the embassy in order to release resources to respond, according to reports from several news media outlets.
Obama is interviewed on 60 Minutes and defends his Mideast policies as aligning the USA with democracy, saying, "There are going to be bumps in the road."
Republican members of Congress say they are have been told by intelligence officials that the Benghazi attack was a well-planned assault timed to the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, not an anti-video protest gone awry.
Sept. 13:
Victoria Nuland, spokeswoman for the State Department, which oversees embassies, says State had evaluated the "threat stream" in Libya prior to the attack, "and we determined that the security at Benghazi was appropriate for what we knew."
Clinton issues a statement saying, "There is no justification, none at all, for responding to this video with violence."
White House spokesman Jay Carney insists: "The protests we're seeing around the region are in reaction to this movie."
Sept. 14:
The bodies of Stevens and three Americans arrive at Andrews Air Force base. Obama says at the base that the United States will "stand fast" against the violence, Both he and Clinton criticize the video for prompting the attacks. "We've seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with," Clinton said.
Carney denies the White House was aware of "any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent." "The story is absolutely wrong," he says. "That report is false."
Sept. 16:
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice appears on five Sunday talks shows and says the attacks were spontaneous eruptions over the anti-Islam video, saying, "This was not a pre-planned, premeditated attack."
President of Libya's general National Congress Mohammed Magarief contradicts the Obama administration, saying there is "no doubt that this (attack) was pre-planned, predetermined."
Sept. 17:
Nuland is asked whether the attack was a terror attack. "I'm not going to put labels on this until we have a complete investigation. I don't think we know enough," she says.
Sept. 18:
Obama appears on The Late Show with David Letterman and is asked by the host if the attack was an act of war. "Here's what happened. You had a video that was released by somebody who lives here … a shadowy character who has an extremely offensive video directed at Mohammed and Islam ... so this caused great offense in much of the Muslim world."
Sept. 19:
The first U.S. administration official to testify on the matter, Director of National Intelligence Matthew Olsen, says the Americans in Benghazi were killed "in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy."
A diary belonging to Stevens found in the burned-out Benghazi consulate by a reporter for CNN indicates Stevens was concerned about security threats.
Sept. 20:
Carney, when asked about Olsen's testimony, says it is "self-evident" that it was a terrorist attack.
In an interview at Univision Town Hall, Obama is asked whether the attack was the work of terrorists. He says his administration is still investigating the attack and cannot say for certain. "What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests," Obama says.
Sept. 21:
Clinton says at a meeting with Pakistan's foreign minister that, "What happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack."
Sept. 25:
ABC airs the television show The View, in which Obama is asked about Clinton's statement. "We don't have all of the information yet so we are still gathering," he says. He says there is "no doubt" that "it wasn't just a mob action."
"What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests," he says.
In a speech to the United Nations, Obama condemns the attacks and the American filmmaker, saying, "A crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world."
Clinton issues a statement acknowledging that an al-Qaeda affiliate in Libya and other Islamist terror groups "are seeking to extend their reach and their networks in multiple directions."
Sept. 26:
Libya's Magarief tells NBC's Today show that the attack was a pre-planned act of terrorism "directed against American citizens."
Sept. 27:
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says, "I think it pretty clearly was a terrorist attack."
Oct. 1:
Nuland declines to address reports that embassy officials in Libya were seeking additional security in Benghazi and denied. "I think it's fair to say that we are still working through what we have in this building in terms of documentation, in terms of information about what we knew, who knew it, when they knew it, and that's part of the process that we have to go through," she says.
Oct. 2:
Carney declines to discuss reports of requests from diplomats in Libya for more security due to the State Department's internal investigation, he says.
Oct. 10:
Senior State Department officials admit in a background briefing with reporters that prior to the attack in Benghazi there was no protest outside the compound. The briefing contradicts initial White House statements that the attack came during a demonstration against the anti-Islam video that got out of control outside the consulate.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2012/10/26 02:39:04
Subject: Re:WH Was Told That The Benghazi Attack Was A Terrorist Attack Within Two Hours
It occurs to me that if people would surely get a lot more outraged over a security failure that couldn't stop a mob of rioters killing US embassy staff, than they would be to stop a dedicated terrorist attack.
I mean, if you wanted to cover up a security feth up, wouldn't you try to claim the attackers were organised, trained and planned?
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2012/10/26 02:43:55
Subject: Re:WH Was Told That The Benghazi Attack Was A Terrorist Attack Within Two Hours
Someone mention something about 30 armed attackers. Pictures though doesn't support that.
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
2012/10/26 02:55:56
Subject: Re:WH Was Told That The Benghazi Attack Was A Terrorist Attack Within Two Hours
Jihadin wrote: Someone mention something about 30 armed attackers. Pictures though doesn't support that.
Jihadin... does this jib with what you know of the military?
The father of the slain security operative also wants to know who gave the order to not rescue his son:
When I heard that there’s a very good chance that the White House as well as other members of the military knew what was going on, and obviously someone had to say, “Don’t go rescue them.” Because every person in the military, their first response is, “We’re going to go rescue them.” We need to find out who it was that gave that command.
Audio of the interview at the link.
Wha? Or, is this a likely a grieving father lashing out?
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2012/10/26 03:06:49
Subject: Re:WH Was Told That The Benghazi Attack Was A Terrorist Attack Within Two Hours
Its not good when you send a military unit uninvited into Libya (leave Iraq and Afghanistan out pls and stick with Libya). Military it seems is getting hammered for not being quick enough to rescue them.
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
2012/10/26 03:18:45
Subject: Re:WH Was Told That The Benghazi Attack Was A Terrorist Attack Within Two Hours
Jihadin wrote: Its not good when you send a military unit uninvited into Libya (leave Iraq and Afghanistan out pls and stick with Libya). Military it seems is getting hammered for not being quick enough to rescue them.
That narrative doesn't make sense to me either.... thanks.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
20122012/10/01 05:58:39
Subject: Re:WH Was Told That The Benghazi Attack Was A Terrorist Attack Within Two Hours
Jihadin wrote: Its not good when you send a military unit uninvited into Libya (leave Iraq and Afghanistan out pls and stick with Libya). Military it seems is getting hammered for not being quick enough to rescue them.
I'm more amused that the FBI still hadn't managed to get their luggage out of the attic and book a flight six days after the attack.
2012/10/26 05:15:42
Subject: Re:WH Was Told That The Benghazi Attack Was A Terrorist Attack Within Two Hours
Jihadin wrote: Its not good when you send a military unit uninvited into Libya (leave Iraq and Afghanistan out pls and stick with Libya). Military it seems is getting hammered for not being quick enough to rescue them.
I'm more amused that the FBI still hadn't managed to get their luggage out of the attic and book a flight six days after the attack.
Who is to say they havn't?
The last thing you want to do is broadcast that you are going in.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/26 05:16:00
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Grey Templar wrote: The last thing you want to do is broadcast that you are going in.
That was actually one of the things the administration stated when briefing on the subject six days after - the FBI was investigating, but had not yet reached Libya.
2012/10/26 15:50:37
Subject: Re:WH Was Told That The Benghazi Attack Was A Terrorist Attack Within Two Hours
one basic principle in military operations is not to jump into a situation without having real-time data. However, we discovered in the House Oversight hearings two weeks ago that we did have that kind of data; the State Department has 50 minutes of video of the attack from surveillance feeds that their command center watched in real time as the attack unfolded. Surely State could have had the Pentagon watch the same feed for the “real-time information” that we otherwise lacked.
Second, it’s difficult to believe that we weren’t collecting this kind of intel prior to the attack. There had been a number of attack attempts in the city on our assets. The New York Times reported that the CIA “got our eyes poked out” by the loss of the consulate. There may have been a lack of intel on the attack itself, but not on the threat. Ambassador Chris Stevens had warned State repeatedly of the security dangers before the terrorist attack that took his life — and let’s not forget that the attack took place on the anniversary of 9/11.
Finally, isn’t there a more basic principle at stake? Consulates and embassies are considered American territory. When they are under attack, the US is under attack in a very real way. When we are under attack, do we not defend ourselves and our people from attack, or do we only do that when the intel is solid?
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2012/10/26 15:55:13
Subject: Re:WH Was Told That The Benghazi Attack Was A Terrorist Attack Within Two Hours
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
I would like to think the US intel systems are quite reliable and fast.
If it were Russia or China, I could see them being hesitant to come to conclusions or say much given a sticky situation between nuclear powers. But this is Libya
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
The military was never ordered to act, and even the local CIA was ordered to stand down.
Stevens and Smith were literally left to fend for themselves, against a terrorist attack conducted by, what, 15-20 people (or more... still trying to determine), all armed, including with mortars and RPGs.
No "spontaneous protest" here at all...
I've wondered about the C130 gunship option before... It's the perfect plane for this sort of thing as it loiters slowly over a target and apparently they had some in the Mediterranean in range.
So... one guy was aiming a laser on a ground target and calling coordinates, painting it for a plane to see. To drop a bomb, to attack with very heavy machineguns.
But the laser itself is nothing, absolutely harmless.
So he sat up there on the roof, risking his life to paint a target with laser light, and no one bothered to send anything to hit that target.
Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later was denied by U.S. officials -- who also told the CIA operators twice to "stand down" rather than help the ambassador's team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.
Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was part of a small team who was at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When he and others heard the shots fired, they informed their higher-ups at the annex to tell them what they were hearing and requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to "stand down," according to sources familiar with the exchange. Soon after, they were again told to "stand down."
Woods and at least two others ignored those orders and made their way to the consulate which at that point was on fire. Shots were exchanged. The rescue team from the CIA annex evacuated those who remained at the consulate and Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack. They could not find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight.
At that point, they called again for military support and help because they were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied. There were no communications problems at the annex, according those present at the compound. The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Spectre gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights. The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours -- enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just 480 miles away, to arrive. Fox News has also learned that two separate Tier One Special operations forces were told to wait, among them Delta Force operators.
Watch "Special Report Investigates: Death and Deceit in Benghazi" on Fox News at 1 p.m. ET on Saturday, 3 p.m. on Sunday and 10 p.m. on Sunday.
A Special Operations team, or CIF which stands for Commanders in Extremis Force, operating in Central Europe had been moved to Sigonella, Italy, but they were never told to deploy. In fact, a Pentagon official says there were never any requests to deploy assets from outside the country. A second force that specializes in counterterrorism rescues was on hand at Sigonella, according to senior military and intelligence sources. According to those sources, they could have flown to Benghazi in less than two hours. They were the same distance to Benghazi as those that were sent from Tripoli. Spectre gunships are commonly used by the Special Operations community to provide close air support.
According to sources on the ground during the attack, the special operator on the roof of the CIA annex had visual contact and a laser pointing at the Libyan mortar team that was targeting the CIA annex. The operators were calling in coordinates of where the Libyan forces were firing from.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told reporters at the Pentagon on Thursday that there was not a clear enough picture of what was occurring on the ground in Benghazi to send help.
"There's a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking going on here," Panetta said Thursday. "But the basic principle here ... is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on."
U.S. officials argue that there was a period of several hours when the fighting stopped before the mortars were fired at the annex, leading officials to believe the attack was over.
Fox News has learned that there were two military surveillance drones redirected to Benghazi shortly after the attack on the consulate began. They were already in the vicinity. The second surveillance craft was sent to relieve the first drone, perhaps due to fuel issues. Both were capable of sending real time visuals back to U.S. officials in Washington, D.C. Any U.S. official or agency with the proper clearance, including the White House Situation Room, State Department, CIA, Pentagon and others, could call up that video in real time on their computers.
Tyrone Woods was later joined at the scene by fellow former Navy SEAL Glen Doherty, who was sent in from Tripoli as part of a Global Response Staff or GRS that provides security to CIA case officers and provides countersurveillance and surveillance protection. They were killed by a mortar shell at 4 a.m. Libyan time, nearly seven hours after the attack on the consulate began -- a window that represented more than enough time for the U.S. military to send back-up from nearby bases in Europe, according to sources familiar with Special Operations. Four mortars were fired at the annex. The first one struck outside the annex. Three more hit the annex.
A motorcade of dozens of Libyan vehicles, some mounted with 50 caliber machine guns, belonging to the February 17th Brigades, a Libyan militia which is friendly to the U.S., finally showed up at the CIA annex at approximately 3 a.m. An American Quick Reaction Force sent from Tripoli had arrived at the Benghazi airport at 2 a.m. (four hours after the initial attack on the consulate) and was delayed for 45 minutes at the airport because they could not at first get transportation, allegedly due to confusion among Libyan militias who were supposed to escort them to the annex, according to Benghazi sources.
The American special operators, Woods, Doherty and at least two others were part of the Global Response Staff, a CIA element, based at the CIA annex and were protecting CIA operators who were part of a mission to track and repurchase arms in Benghazi that had proliferated in the wake of Muammar Qaddafi's fall. Part of their mission was to find the more than 20,000 missing MANPADS, or shoulder-held missiles capable of bringing down a commercial aircraft. According to a source on the ground at the time of the attack, the team inside the CIA annex had captured three Libyan attackers and was forced to hand them over to the Libyans. U.S. officials do not know what happened to those three attackers and whether they were released by the Libyan forces.
Fox News has also learned that Stevens was in Benghazi that day to be present at the opening of an English-language school being started by the Libyan farmer who helped save an American pilot who had been shot down by pro-Qaddafi forces during the initial war to overthrow the regime. That farmer saved the life of the American pilot and the ambassador wanted to be present to launch the Libyan rescuer's new school.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2012/10/26 17:09:07
Subject: WH Was Told That The Benghazi Attack Was A Terrorist Attack Within Two Hours
