Alexzandvar wrote:
JUST
LET
IT
DIE


words cannot describe how utterly annoying this is. Yes its a scandal, yes the state department dropped the ball, everyone knows it.

Now Lord Necromancer Whembly I beseach you, this rotting corpse is REALLY starting to stink

 Alexzandvar wrote:
Obama has already been reelected and he only has 2 years left,

Hillary is no longer part of the state department and she isn't running for president, not yet anyway.

Calm yourself, trust me I bet a large amount of state department staff got roasted over this scandal, someone always gets roasted when things like this happen. Just not often the higher ups, which is bad Ill give that to you.

What would have done to Reagan for iran-contra?

And Hillary is probably not running, the Clinton family is tired of politics.

 Alexzandvar wrote:
I know you say that because you don't really know them personally but there family does not like politics, they might enjoy there positions but they don't like politics.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:
I know you say that because you don't really know them personally but there family does not like politics, they might enjoy there positions but they don't like politics.

Again, you're saying this about a family who's three people were a President, wannebe President and daughter considering politics. Whatever you're smoking I want some.

 Alexzandvar wrote:
JUST
LET
IT
DIE


words cannot describe how utterly annoying this is. Yes its a scandal, yes the state department dropped the ball, everyone knows it.

Now Lord Necromancer Whembly I beseach you, this rotting corpse is REALLY starting to stink

 Easy E wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:
JUST
LET
IT
DIE


words cannot describe how utterly annoying this is. Yes its a scandal, yes the state department dropped the ball, everyone knows it.

Now Lord Necromancer Whembly I beseach you, this rotting corpse is REALLY starting to stink

Didn't you read the title of the thread?

The right will never let this die until Obama and the Clinton's are completely out of politics and the Democrats have been swept from any position in the government.

Until then, never forget Benghazi!

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Personally I am not surprised he lied, and neither should anybody else. All presidents lie, it's practically required. Some memorable ones include "I did not have sexual relations with this woman." "I am not a crook." and almost anything Bush said about WBDs. We as the American voters have created a system that not only allows important people in power to lie and get away with it, but also a system that is horribly divided along party lines. Obama lied to protect himself from republicans who would have attacked him of he admitted a mistake. This happens to all presidents, they have to lie and make half truths to protect themselves from a increasing partisan environment. They also limit what they try to do to simultaneously please their increasingly reactionary or radical parties and protect themselves from the other party.

 whembly wrote:
So, then the REAL question is, if they would lie so egregiously and continuously about a relatively small matter (from their political perspective), what else have they been willing to lie to us about?

(CNN) -- The September 2012 attack that killed four Americans at a diplomatic compound in Libya was "likely preventable" based on known security shortfalls there and prior warnings that the security situation in that country was deteriorating, the majority of the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded in a report released Wednesday.

The report on the attack in Benghazi puts some blame on the State Department, saying it should have "increased its security posture more significantly" in Libya's second-largest city because of general warnings that U.S. personnel were at risk there.

The intelligence community "provided ample strategic warning" that Americans and U.S. facilities were in danger, though it didn't offer a single warning that would have predicted the Benghazi attack that killed U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three others, the report said.

But the report didn't spare the intelligence community, saying it might have flagged potential threats to the compound had it done more analysis of "extremist-affiliated social media."

It also blasted the intelligence community for inaccurately reporting -- without "sufficient intelligence to corroborate it" -- that a protest might have led to the attack. The report said the community took too long to correct the erroneous reports, "which caused confusion and influenced the public statements of policymakers."

The report also noted what the FBI previously told the panel -- that 15 people who have been cooperating with the FBI investigation had been killed in Benghazi, severely hampering the investigation. The report says it is unclear whether the killings were related to the Benghazi investigation.

"The FBI's investigation into the individuals responsible for the Benghazi attacks has been hampered by inadequate cooperation and a lack of capacity by foreign governments to hold these perpetrators accountable, making the pursuit of justice for the attacks slow and insufficient," the report said. "As a result, key information gaps remain about the potential foreknowledge and complicity of Libyan militia groups and security forces, the level of pre-planning for the attacks, the perpetrators and their involvement in other terrorist activities and the motivation for the attacks."

 Alexzandvar wrote:
Bump!?!? BUMP!?!?


I swear whembly you should devote you dedication to something more productive.

Nothing more will ever come of this, its old news only picked up by people using it to mud sling at once another.

Whos at fault? Hillary for not providing properly for the ambassador?

The Department of Defense for not responding in time?

The Republican Majority in the house which pushed through cutting more funding for the state department?

The correct answer is: They all are. The minute people learn accept that not everything that goes wrong is singularly the fault of the current party you oppose

 Alexzandvar wrote:
Source of debunking? State department DID receive cuts, and while there was money to improve security, it was tied up in committee.

And I'm not saying everyones to blame for everything, but in this case, those 3 parties ARE all at fault to varying extents.

Not holding enough people responsible is just as bad as to many.

 djones520 wrote:
None of these attacks were on poorely gaurded embassies in a country that had no central government, torn by war.

Your demanding outrage for things that don't warrant it.

(CNN) -- The deadly attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, was "likely preventable" based on known security shortfalls and prior warnings that the security situation there was deteriorating, the majority of the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded in a report released on Wednesday.

Separately, the findings also noted what the FBI had told the panel -- that 15 people cooperating with its investigation had been killed in Benghazi, undercutting the investigation. It was not clear if the killings were related to the probe.

Moreover, it said that people linked with various al Qaeda-related groups in North Africa and elsewhere participated in the September 11, 2012, attack, but investigators haven't been able to determine whether any one group was in command.

The report placed some blame for the outcome on the State Department, saying it should have "increased its security posture more significantly" in Libya's second-largest city because of general warnings that U.S. personnel were at risk.

Benghazi report sparks partisan outcry The intelligence community "provided ample strategic warning" that Americans and U.S. facilities were in danger, though it didn't offer a single warning that would have predicted the Benghazi attack that killed U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, the report said.

But the findings didn't spare the intelligence community, saying it might have flagged potential threats to the compound had it done more analysis of "extremist-affiliated social media."

It also blasted U.S. intelligence for inaccurately reporting -- without "sufficient intelligence to corroborate it" -- that a protest might have led to the attack.

The report said the intelligence community took too long to correct the erroneous reports, "which caused confusion and influenced the public statements of policymakers."

The Obama administration initially believed the armed assault was triggered by outrage over a U.S.-produced anti-Muslim film. It has since classified it as an organized terror attack.

Investigators haven't found evidence of pre-planning and suggest at least part of the attack was "opportunistic."

That suggests a vulnerability for diplomatic facilities, because attacks can happen with little warning, the report said.

Questions around security and intelligence as well as the slow-to-evolve and changing explanation fueled a ferocious response from Republicans in Congress, who have sharply criticized the administration and continue to investigate.

New York Times report casts doubt on al Qaeda involvement in Benghazi

A State Department spokeswoman, Marie Harf, said the report largely affirms the findings of an independent review of the Benghazi matter that recommended steps -- since undertaken by the agency -- to improve security at diplomatic facilities worldwide.

On the issue of whether the attacks were preventable, Harf noted that "we have repeatedly said there was no specific threat" pointing to an attack.

"Obviously, we've talked at length about the fact that we knew there were extremists and terrorists operating in Libya and in Benghazi. But, again, we had no specific information indicating a threat an attack was coming," she said.

The Intelligence Committee report follows the release on Monday of previously classified information by the House Armed Services Committee.

According to the documents, senior military officials told the panel there were no discussions related to any specific threat in Libya despite general warnings about the possibility of terror attacks around the anniversary of 9/11. As a result, additional military assets were not deployed to the area.

On the investigation, the FBI was quoted in the report as saying the 15 deaths have severely hampered its probe.

"The FBI's investigation into the individuals responsible for the Benghazi attacks has been hampered by inadequate cooperation and a lack of capacity by foreign governments to hold these perpetrators accountable, making the pursuit of justice for the attacks slow and insufficient," the report said.

"As a result, key information gaps remain about the potential foreknowledge and complicity of Libyan militia groups and security forces, the level of pre-planning for the attacks, the perpetrators and their involvement in other terrorist activities and the motivation for the attacks."

Several Intelligence Committee Republicans issued a separate set of conclusions.

Committee Vice Chairman Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Marco Rubio of Florida, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, and Dan Coats of Indiana said failures that led to the attack could be partly related to Obama's failure, in their words, to establish a clear detention policy for terror suspects that gets the most out of intelligence collection.

Instead of sending terror suspects directly to the military facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the administration has temporarily interrogated suspects on Navy ships, sometimes for weeks at a time, before sending them to the United States for trial.

"President Obama and his administration must end their efforts to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and must develop a clear, cogent policy for the detention and interrogation of suspected terrorists," the Senators wrote.

Evidence Supports Inference that Hillary Clinton Was Directly Responsible for the Benghazi Security Failures

Evidence suggests that the security failures at Benghazi likely went straight to the top — meaning, very possibly, Hillary Clinton herself:

The decision to keep U.S. personnel in Benghazi with substandard security was made at the highest levels of the State Department by officials who have so far escaped blame over the Sept. 11 attack, according to a review of recent congressional testimony and internal State Department memos by Fox News.

Nine months before the assault that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others, State Department Under Secretary Patrick Kennedy signed off on an internal memo that green-lighted the Benghazi operation.

The December 2011 memo from Jeffrey Feltman — then-Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs (NEA) — pledged “to rapidly implement a series of corrective security measures.” However, no substantial improvements were made, according to congressional testimony to the House oversight committee from Regional Security Officer Eric Nordstrom.

The essence of the story is that Hillary had a goal of establishing a permanent presence in Benghazi — something completely unknown to Thomas Pickering of the inappropriately named “Accountability Review Board,” which held nobody accountable, conducted an insufficient review (not even interviewing Clinton), and which I suspect may not have even been a “board.” (What with the dishonesty of the first two words of this thing’s title, why would we believe the third is truthful?!)

You see, a permanent consulate is required by law to have certain security standards. Posterior-covering talking points in panicked emails after the slaughter warned not to refer to Benghazi as a “consultate,” presumably so that nobody would point out the inconvenient discrepancy between legal security requirements for consulates and the lack of security for this, er, “mission” or “diplomatic post.”

But the lack of security deeply troubled one State Department official:

Nordstrom repeatedly expressed his deep security concerns and noted Benghazi was still “undefined” in emails with his superiors seven months before the attacks.

In February 2012, he wrote that “while the status of Benghazi remains undefined, DS (Diplomatic Security) is hesitant to dev[ote] resources and as I indicated previously, this has severely hampered operations in Benghazi.”

He said that he “only had two DS agents on the ground. … and been advised that DS isn’t going to provide more than 3 DS agents over the long term.”

The connection to Hillary lies not merely in her ambitions to make Benghazi a Consulate that Shall Not Be Called a Consulate, but also in the level of approval that would have been needed to maintain the consulate without sufficient security. The Mustache himself says Hillary’s involvement was likely:

While other media reports have made passing references to the action memo signed by Kennedy and Feltman in the context of ongoing security issues, former State Department officials tell Fox News that the document is significant because Kennedy would not set policy on his own. Kennedy was ultimately responsible for overseas building operations deals with building leases and security, which should have followed strict OSPB standards.

“I find it very hard to believe that he (Kennedy) would sign this memo without having talked to Secretary Clinton or at least Deputy Secretary (William) Burns,” former ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton told Fox News after examining the December 2011 memo.

“Keeping this position open in Benghazi is a policy decision. It’s a policy decision that overrides normal security considerations. And I think that’s significant enough that a careerist like Undersecretary Kennedy would not do it on his own.”

Cue the Outrage Trump Card.

WHAT DIFFERENCE, AT THIS POINT, DOES IT MAKE?!?!?!

 whembly wrote:
Looks like a rehash of what Dreadclaw posted earlier.

Gregory Hicks: Benghazi and the Smearing of Chris Stevens

Shifting blame to our dead ambassador is wrong on the facts. I know—I was there.

Last week the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence issued its report on the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya. The report concluded that the attack, which resulted in the murder of four Americans, was "preventable." Some have been suggesting that the blame for this tragedy lies at least partly with Ambassador Chris Stevens, who was killed in the attack. This is untrue: The blame lies entirely with Washington.

The report states that retired Gen. Carter Ham, then-commander of the U.S. Africa Command (Africom) headquartered in Stuttgart, Germany, twice offered to "sustain" the special forces security team in Tripoli and that Chris twice "declined." Since Chris cannot speak, I want to explain the reasons and timing for his responses to Gen. Ham. As the deputy chief of mission, I was kept informed by Chris or was present throughout the process.

On Aug. 1, 2012, the day after I arrived in Tripoli, Chris invited me to a video conference with Africom to discuss changing the mission of the U.S. Special Forces from protecting the U.S. Embassy and its personnel to training Libyan forces. This change in mission would result in the transfer of authority over the unit in Tripoli from Chris to Gen. Ham. In other words, the special forces would report to the Defense Department, not State.

Chris wanted the decision postponed but could not say so directly. Chris had requested on July 9 by cable that Washington provide a minimum of 13 American security professionals for Libya over and above the diplomatic security complement of eight assigned to Tripoli and Benghazi. On July 11, the Defense Department, apparently in response to Chris's request, offered to extend the special forces mission to protect the U.S. Embassy.

However, on July 13, State Department Undersecretary Patrick Kennedy refused the Defense Department offer and thus Chris's July 9 request. His rationale was that Libyan guards would be hired to take over this responsibility. Because of Mr. Kennedy's refusal, Chris had to use diplomatic language at the video conference, such as expressing "reservations" about the transfer of authority.

Chris's concern was significant. Transferring authority would immediately strip the special forces team of its diplomatic immunity. Moreover, the U.S. had no status of forces agreement with Libya. He explained to Rear Adm. Charles J. Leidig that if a member of the special forces team used weapons to protect U.S. facilities, personnel or themselves, he would be subject to Libyan law. The law would be administered by judges appointed to the bench by Moammar Gadhafi or, worse, tribal judges.

Chris described an incident in Pakistan in 2011 when an American security contractor killed Pakistani citizens in self-defense, precipitating a crisis in U.S.-Pakistani relations. He also pointed out that four International Criminal Court staff, who had traveled to Libya in June 2012 to interview Gadhafi's oldest son, Saif al-Islam al-Qadhafi, were illegally detained by tribal authorities under suspicion of spying. This was another risk U.S. military personnel might face.

During that video conference, Chris stressed that the only way to mitigate the risk was to ensure that U.S. military personnel serving in Libya would have diplomatic immunity, which should be done prior to any change of authority.

Chris understood the importance of the special forces team to the security of our embassy personnel. He believed that by explaining his concerns, the Defense Department would postpone the decision so he could have time to work with the Libyan government and get diplomatic immunity for the special forces.

According to the National Defense Authorization Act, the Defense Department needed Chris's concurrence to change the special forces mission. But soon after the Aug. 1 meeting, and as a complete surprise to us at the embassy, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta signed the order without Chris's concurrence.

The SenateIntelligence Committee's report accurately notes that on Aug. 6, after the transfer of authority, two special forces team members in a diplomatic vehicle were forced off the road in Tripoli and attacked. Only because of their courage, skills and training did they escape unharmed. But the incident highlighted the risks associated with having military personnel in Libya unprotected by diplomatic immunity or a status of forces agreement. As a result of this incident, Chris was forced to agree with Gen. Ham's withdrawal of most of the special forces team from Tripoli until the Libyan government formally approved their new training mission and granted them diplomatic immunity.

Because Mr. Kennedy had refused to extend the special forces security mission, State Department protocol required Chris to decline Gen. Ham's two offers to do so, which were made after Aug. 6. I have found the reporting of these so-called offers strange, since my recollection of events is that after the Aug. 6 incident, Gen. Ham wanted to withdraw the entire special forces team from Tripoli until they had Libyan government approval of their new mission and the diplomatic immunity necessary to perform their mission safely. However, Chris convinced Gen. Ham to leave six members of the team in Tripoli.

When I arrived in Tripoli on July 31, we had over 30 security personnel, from the State Department and the U.S. military, assigned to protect the diplomatic mission to Libya. All were under the ambassador's authority. On Sept. 11, we had only nine diplomatic security agents under Chris's authority to protect our diplomatic personnel in Tripoli and Benghazi.

I was interviewed by the Select Committee and its staff, who were professional and thorough. I explained this sequence of events. For some reason, my explanation did not make it into the Senate report.

To sum up: Chris Stevens was not responsible for the reduction in security personnel. His requests for additional security were denied or ignored. Officials at the State and Defense Departments in Washington made the decisions that resulted in reduced security. Sen. Lindsey Graham stated on the Senate floor last week that Chris "was in Benghazi because that is where he was supposed to be doing what America wanted him to do: Try to hold Libya together." He added, "Quit blaming the dead guy."

Information on ground rejects protest account

Members of the House Intelligence Committee held a classified session Tuesday with the CIA’s former Libya station chief, whose assessment that there had been no protest leading before the Benghazi terrorist attacks was left out of the Obama administration’s talking points used on national television.

While the CIA would neither confirm nor deny the session on Capitol Hill, other sources familiar with the development told The Washington Times that committee members sought the station chief’s perspective on the talking points ahead of a long-anticipated public hearing Wednesday — during which former Deputy CIA Director Michael J. Morell is slated to testify.

Lawmakers say the hearing will delve into why Mr. Morell and other agency officials in Washington did not include the station chief’s assessments in claims by then-U.N. Ambassador Susan E. Rice to assert during several news talk shows that the Benghazi attacks grew out of a protest over an anti-islam video.

The discussion Wednesday will home in, lawmakers say, on a series of secure-video teleconferences held between senior officials in Washington and officials based in Libya during the days immediately following the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks.

Sources directly familiar with the CIA’s early gathering of the Benghazi intelligence told the Times on Tuesday that Mr. Morell attended a secure video conference call — known in intelligence circles as a deputies meeting — on the morning of Sept. 13, just two days after the Benghazi attacks.

During the call, Mr. Morell provided participants, including CIA officials in Libya, with the current thinking of intelligence analysts that the attacks had been carried out by extremists, but may have been an outgrowth of protests inspired by an anti-Islam video earlier that day.

At the time, the intelligence community’s assessment was that a possible protest outside the State Department’s Benghazi compound may have provided a convenient opportunity for the terrorists to carry out the attack.

But by Sept. 15, the CIA station chief in Tripoli had talked directly to his team in Benghazi, which had come to the defense of the compound during the attack, according to sources who spoke only on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the news media.

The sources said that the station chief relayed to his superiors in Washington in an email that the CIA personnel on the ground found no evidence that the attack had been an escalation of any protest.

However, the CIA officials at headquarters understood that the Benghazi CIA personnel had arrived at the State Department compound from a nearby CIA annex in the eastern Libyan city, roughly an hour into the attack — and had not been at compound when the violence initially began. As a result, CIA analysts were not yet prepared to change their initial assessments.

But Mr. Morell let officials know inside the Obama administration that the initial thinking about a videotaped-inspired protest leading to main attack was being challenged by some eyewitnesses and other information. Nonetheless, Mrs. Rice went on television the next day to blame the anti-Islam video.

Over the next four days, however, CIA officials gained access to the video security tapes and by Sept. 20 had definitively concluded that no protest had formed outside the compound before the attack, the sources said.

What is not clear is who specifically was on the Sept. 13 or other secure teleconferences around that time — specifically whether any senior officials from the White House were on the calls.

One source close to the situation said Mr. Morell and others in Washington were joined on at least one of the calls by the CIA station chief and by State Department’s then-Deputy Chief of Mission Gregory Hicks — both of whom were at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli.

What got said during the calls has emerged as one of the major bones of contention in the nearly two years of political fireworks and congressional investigations into the Benghazi attack.

Several Republican lawmakers argue the calls may finally help to explain why the talking points used by Mrs. Rice were crafted in the way that they were. The lawmakers have long argued that the Obama administration, with an eye on the November 2012 elections, intentionally pushed the false video narrative to downplay the role of terrorists in the attacks and to protect the president’s overall record on counterterrorism.

President Obama disputed the Republican claims during a February interview with Fox News, saying his administration did not try to “hide the ball” regarding the attacks, in which U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed.

Rep. Mike Rogers, Michigan Republican and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee declined to comment Tuesday. However, one of his aides told The Times that the question of how firmly Mr. Morell pushed the assessment of his station chief in Libya to senior officials at the White House and State Department is “clearly” what Mr. Rogers is “trying to get resolved.”

 Ahtman wrote:
After this many months you really should have just started a new thread.