Who really killed our Ambassador to Libya?

[navigator]

This is an unsubstantiated rumor. A quick Google search shows that General Ham is still in command, and Panetta says Ham opposed intervention.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57540712/military-response-to-benghazi-attack-questioned/

 

Thanks, I stand corrected, he is still in command. However, that doesn't change the fact that there was ample time to respond. Whether or not an order to stand down was given, there is no doubt our military brass were chomping at the bit to go in and attempt a rescue, but the order was never given. Coupled with the conflicting statements given by this administration about the nature of the attack makes one wonder what they are hiding.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Thanks, I stand corrected, he is still in command. However, that doesn't change the fact that there was ample time to respond. Whether or not an order to stand down was given, there is no doubt our military brass were chomping at the bit to go in and attempt a rescue, but the order was never given. Coupled with the conflicting statements given by this administration about the nature of the attack makes one wonder what they are hiding.

Forces did react. There was not sufficient time or information for them to arrive and be effective.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57539738/u.s-military-poised-for-rescue-in-benghazi/

[navigator]

Forces did react. There was not sufficient time or information for them to arrive and be effective.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57539738/u.s-military-poised-for-rescue-in-benghazi/

 

Surely you jest...or are you really implying that if there was sufficient time to form a rescue, in leiu of all the confusion, that his transparent administraion would have admitted it, right before an election?

 

And why did it take a month before the FBI had angents in Benghazi to begin an investigation?

 

Also, the second attack is when the last two seals were killed on the roof of the annex, I have heard reports that they had laser targets for air support that never came. If a rescue team been sent in to the consulate, the second attack could have been prevented and the seals lives spared.

Edited November 15, 2012 by navigator

[D H]

This is an unsubstantiated rumor.

Don't be so nice. This is an out-and-out lie, one that even Fox News and the Washington Times won't touch.

 

Here's the truth: http://www.africom.mil/getArticle.asp?art=8383&blog=all

On 10/30/2012 11:08:46 AM, AFRICOM PAO in Stuttgart, Germany said:

We are aware of the rumors surrounding General Ham's upcoming departure, and the assumptions are false. General Carter F. Ham is currently the commander of U.S. Africa Command. Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta's announced intention on October 18 to nominate Army General David M. Rodriguez to succeed General Ham followed leadership succession deliberations that took place well before the incident of 9/11/12.

 

General Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, addressed this issue: "The speculation that General Carter Ham is departing Africa Command (AFRICOM) due to events in Benghazi, Libya, on 11 September 2012 is absolutely false. General Ham's departure is part of routine succession planning that has been on going since July. He continues to serve in AFRICOM with my complete confidence."

 

That's the problem here. The frothing at the mouth, anti-Obama crowd sees this as an impeachable offense. (That crowd sees everything Obama does as an impeachable offense.) They're tossing excrement to see where it sticks. Mostly, it sticks on them.

 

The lie about the real-time video feed: Nobody in the White House, or in the State Department, was watching the consulate CCTV cameras in real time. Nobody in the White House, or in the State Department, was watching the low resolution feed from the drone in real time. There was no electronic connection between those CCTV cameras and the outside world; they had to wait for weeks to see that gruesome footage. The drone was an hour or so late and was of limited resolution. It helped analysts with highly trained eyes determine what transpired after the fact. It did not help in real time, and untrained eyes such as those in the White House or State Department could not have made sense of what was relayed (realtime or not).

 

 

Did the Obama administration make mistakes on this matter? Almost certainly. Every administration makes mistakes. Presidents deal with the hardest of issues, often with spotty information. If making mistakes was an impeachable offense we'd have to impeach our Presidents on a weekly basis. Mistakes were made, but this was not a significant event.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Surely you jest...or are you really implying that if there was sufficient time to form a rescue, in leiu of all the confusion, that his transparent administraion would have admitted it, right before an election?

I'm not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting that the administration is wrong, there was actually sufficient time for military forces to arrive, and their denial is a lie?

 

If you're going to reject any government statement which contracts you as a lie, there's no point to this discussion -- it's impossible to change your mind.

 

Because the attack was in fact three attacks spread over seven hours, it seems entirely plausible that officials told reaction forces "never mind, it's over", only to be surprised when an attack started again.

 

And why did it take a month before the FBI had angents in Benghazi to begin an investigation?

Presumably because finding a bunch of agents with relevant expertise, freeing up their calendars, and sending them to a country where they have no jurisdiction, no knowledge of the language, and none of their typical support assets is difficult.

[navigator]

I'm not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting that the administration is wrong, there was actually sufficient time for military forces to arrive, and their denial is a lie?

 

If you're going to reject any government statement which contracts you as a lie, there's no point to this discussion -- it's impossible to change your mind.

 

Because the attack was in fact three attacks spread over seven hours, it seems entirely plausible that officials told reaction forces "never mind, it's over", only to be surprised when an attack started again.

 

 

Presumably because finding a bunch of agents with relevant expertise, freeing up their calendars, and sending them to a country where they have no jurisdiction, no knowledge of the language, and none of their typical support assets is difficult.

 

Over six hours after the initial attack, former U.S. Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty are killed in the mortar assault.

 

Also there were six security agents sent into Benghazi, from tripoli, four hours into the attack so they are contradicting themselves by saying there wasn't sufficient time.

 

And to top it off, The airplane sent to rescue the evacuees and security personel the next morning was too small, so a group had to wait another three hours for the plane to return.

 

Serious lack of leadership.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Also there were six security agents sent into Benghazi, from tripoli, four hours into the attack so they are contradicting themselves by saying there wasn't sufficient time.

Yes, and those agents arrived after Stevens was dead, just in time to be shelled with the mortar attack. Doherty and Woods died after their arrival.

 

In other words: yes, help had arrived. But not enough help, and not fast enough for Stevens to be saved.

 

Time elapsed between gunfire being heard at the compound and and Stevens being lost in the fire, presumed dead: twenty minutes.

 

Good luck getting a response team out.

 

An hour later, the CIA response team believes the attack is over with and leaves for their base in an armored vehicle. Only after they arrive at their own compound and take fire are security teams from other countries ordered to move, but it's already too late.

 

It's hard to fault the DoD and CIA for not being sufficiently psychic.

[navigator]

 

It's hard to fault the DoD and CIA for not being sufficiently psychic.

 

Maybe true in some cases, but that is hard to square with the POTUS first priority, protecting the American people in this case. Further, there is a vast chasm between turning a blind eye and not being sufficiently psychic... security in Libya cut before Benghazi attack inspite of two recent attacks, failing to convene Counterterrorism Security Group , Obama only calling it terrorism when convenient, etc.

 

The Obama administration has become drunk on its own kool-aid, Osama is dead and Al queada is on the run, remember?

 

That is what his actions have shown, leading up to the attack in Benghazi, as well as the inept response.

Edited November 15, 2012 by navigator

[ydoaPs]

I like how "liberal talking points" means "fact checking FOX 'news' lies".

[iNow]

I lurk here from time to time to find what the left wing talking points currently are and I am rarely dissapointed, it is always amazing to see the

alternate reality many posters on this board live in, this post is a good example.

I love how you just wrote off DH as a lefty liberal. Talk about not having a clue as to the characteristics and personality of members here. When folks talk about the extreme disconnect from reality shown by the modern right wing in the US, this is the type of example that neatly supports that assertion.

 

AFAIK, DH is hardly some hippy dippy liberal. In my experience, he's demonstrated himself to be a rather hard nosed guy... well educated, religious, and reasonable... It's just that he doesn't put up with bullshit of any flavor. Just because he doesn't drink the kool-aid of faux news and limbaugh and just because he doesn't blindly accept the lies and nonsense and propaganda doesn't mean he's some pinko commie who sings koombaya and burns patchouli incense while mooching off the government teet.

 

It's ridiculous what's happened to political discourse in our country. It used to be that intelligent people could disagree without being disagreeable. Now, we can't even get basic agreement on indisputable facts. As much as people chant how the US is the best country on earth, we're really turning ourselves into a nation like theocratic Iran or post depression era Germany. I'm really not a huge fan of this post modernist truthiness that has taken hold lately in online discussion. Your post is a good example of why.

Edited November 16, 2012 by iNow

[navigator]

I love how you just wrote off DH as a lefty liberal. Talk about not having a clue as to the characteristics and personality of members here. When folks talk about the extreme disconnect from reality shown by the modern right wing in the US, this is the type of example that neatly supports that assertion.

 

AFAIK, DH is hardly some hippy dippy liberal. In my experience, he's demonstrated himself to be a rather hard nosed guy... well educated, religious, and reasonable... It's just that he doesn't put up with bullshit of any flavor. Just because he doesn't drink the kool-aid of faux news and limbaugh and just because he doesn't blindly accept the lies and nonsense and propaganda doesn't mean he's some pinko commie who sings koombaya and burns patchouli incense while mooching off the government teet.

 

Ok, fair enough. While I do feel you are putting words in my mouth, I see no benefit commenting further on your opinion of D H.

 

It's ridiculous what's happened to political discourse in our country. It used to be that intelligent people could disagree without being disagreeable. Now, we can't even get basic agreement on indisputable facts. As much as people chant how the US is the best country on earth, we're really turning ourselves into a nation like theocratic Iran or post depression era Germany. I'm really not a huge fan of this post modernist truthiness that has taken hold lately in online discussion. Your post is a good example of why.

 

 

Which is the whole point in why I pointed out the errors in his post claiming Fox news is spreading a bunch of lies when in fact most were the facts, same as reported by other MSM. I was incorrect about one and Cap'n corrected me. Maybe you can correct me on the others so we can agree on the indisputable facts.

[rigney]

Ok, fair enough. While I do feel you are putting words in my mouth, I see no benefit commenting further on your opinion of D H.

 

Which is the whole point in why I pointed out the errors in his post claiming Fox news is spreading a bunch of lies when in fact most were the facts, same as reported by other MSM. I was incorrect about one and Cap'n corrected me. Maybe you can correct me on the others so we can agree on the indisputable facts.

Wish I had your style Guy. Unfortunately the old gray matter doesn't function as it once did. But something as serious as this Benghazi SNAFU has to be continuously keel hauled until all of the barnacles are scraped away. And regardless of the party in office, my concerns would be exactly the same.

[iNow]

Wish I had your style Guy. Unfortunately the old gray matter doesn't function as it once did. But something as serious as this Benghazi SNAFU has to be continuously keel hauled until all of the barnacles are scraped away. And regardless of the party in office, my concerns would be exactly the same.

What specific 'snafu' happened in Bengazi, rigney? I remain unclear on that point. Can you help?

Edited November 16, 2012 by iNow

[rigney]

What specific 'snafu' happened in Bengazi, rigney? I remain unclear on that point. Can you help?

Afraid I can't satisfy your curiousity at the moment iNow since the goal post keep moving and the water is still very muddy. Thought I had a handle on the situation, but now I'm becoming as confused as you. Let's wait a few days to see how these inquiries proceed and maybe we can discuss it more. But the fact that four Americans have been murdered and there seems to be no clear understanding as to why, you and I both know something as such is considered a major debacle and usually referred to as, SNAFU. Edited November 16, 2012 by rigney

[ydoaPs]

Afraid I can't satisfy your curiousity at the moment iNow since the goal post keep moving and the water is still very muddy.

 

The goal posts haven't moved an inch; in fact, this was the same question we've been asking you SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE THREAD.

[rigney]

The goal posts haven't moved an inch; in fact, this was the same question we've been asking you SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE THREAD.

Dude! My initial questions of this post on Oct.3 began with:

Who murdered our Ambassador in Benghazi, Libya? I know he is dead along with 3 of his comrades, but why? It has been a month now and Obama's cabinet has said nothing that rings of truth. Or are the Republicans still just grasping at straws to hurt this administration during the coming election campaign? i'm surprised there hasn't been more discussion on the issue.

Today is11/16/12 so tell me, just what part of that inquiry do you still not understand?

Edited November 16, 2012 by rigney

[D H]

Which is the whole point in why I pointed out the errors in his post claiming Fox news is spreading a bunch of lies when in fact most were the facts, same as reported by other MSM. I was incorrect about one and Cap'n corrected me. Maybe you can correct me on the others so we can agree on the indisputable facts.

You were incorrect about General Ham. Very incorrect.

 

You were incorrect about the White House and State Department watching events in realtime. Yes, there were drones. No, the feed was not watched at the White House, or at the State Department. That's a lie that keeps getting repeated in the right wing media.

 

You were incorrect about the detainees. Fox reported on October 26 that the CIA held detainees at that CIA annex. The CIA has renounced this in "no uncertain terms". Fox has yet to issue a retraction.

 

You were incorrect about the laser painting of the mortars. This is yet another lie widely promulgated in the right wing media. The Pentagon has denounced this one as "creative Tom Clancy-level fiction".

 

You missed the point about the nature of the attacks. Yes, they took place over a six to seven hour period. It was not one continuous firefight as is portrayed in the right wing media. There was a lull between the initial attack and the attack on the first batch of CIA support, then there as a long lull, four hours or so, before the final attack on the CIA annex. Those long lulls are important. They paints a very different picture of what transpired compared to what the right wing media their minions to think.

 

You are wrong about the Obama administration lying about the nature of the attacks after the fact. Here's the truth of the matter, from http://dni.gov/files/documents/Newsroom/Press%20Releases/ODNI_Benghazi_Statement_9.28.2012.pdf:

As the Intelligence Community collects and analyzes more information related to the attack, our understanding of the event continues to evolve. In the immediate aftermath, there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo. We provided that initial assessment to Executive Branch officials and members of Congress, who used that information to discuss the attack publicly and provide updates as they became available. Throughout our investigation we continued to emphasize that information gathered was preliminary and evolving.

 

As we learned more about the attack, we revised our initial assessment to reflect new information indicating that it was a deliberate and organized terrorist attack carried out by extremists. It remains unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and control of the attack, and if extremist group leaders directed their members to participate. However, we do assess that some of those involved were linked to groups affiliated with, or sympathetic to al-Qa'ida. We continue to make progress, but there remain many unanswered questions. As more information becomes available our analysis will continue to evolve and we will obtain a more complete understanding of the circumstances surrounding the terrorist attack.

There were no lies, just incomplete intelligence that of course evolved as more information came in.

 

 

What's left is that the Obama administration perhaps should have done a better job before the attack. Is that truly an impeachable offense?

[navigator]

You were incorrect about General Ham. Very incorrect.

 

You were incorrect about the White House and State Department watching events in realtime. Yes, there were drones. No, the feed was not watched at the White House, or at the State Department. That's a lie that keeps getting repeated in the right wing media.

 

You were incorrect about the detainees. Fox reported on October 26 that the CIA held detainees at that CIA annex. The CIA has renounced this in "no uncertain terms". Fox has yet to issue a retraction.

 

You were incorrect about the laser painting of the mortars. This is yet another lie widely promulgated in the right wing media. The Pentagon has denounced this one as "creative Tom Clancy-level fiction".

 

This is all your opinion, do you have anything to back it up?

 

 

You missed the point about the nature of the attacks. Yes, they took place over a six to seven hour period. It was not one continuous firefight as is portrayed in the right wing media. There was a lull between the initial attack and the attack on the first batch of CIA support, then there as a long lull, four hours or so, before the final attack on the CIA annex. Those long lulls are important. They paints a very different picture of what transpired compared to what the right wing media their minions to think.

 

I was never under the impression it was one long continuous fight, the CNN link to the time line of the attacks clealy shows it was not. That does not cange the fact that the response to the attack by the Obama administration was completely inadequate.

 

You are wrong about the Obama administration lying about the nature of the attacks after the fact. Here's the truth of the matter, from http://dni.gov/files/documents/Newsroom/Press%20Releases/ODNI_Benghazi_Statement_9.28.2012.pdf:

As the Intelligence Community collects and analyzes more information related to the attack, our understanding of the event continues to evolve. In the immediate aftermath, there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo. We provided that initial assessment to Executive Branch officials and members of Congress, who used that information to discuss the attack publicly and provide updates as they became available. Throughout our investigation we continued to emphasize that information gathered was preliminary and evolving.

 

As we learned more about the attack, we revised our initial assessment to reflect new information indicating that it was a deliberate and organized terrorist attack carried out by extremists. It remains unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and control of the attack, and if extremist group leaders directed their members to participate. However, we do assess that some of those involved were linked to groups affiliated with, or sympathetic to al-Qa'ida. We continue to make progress, but there remain many unanswered questions. As more information becomes available our analysis will continue to evolve and we will obtain a more complete understanding of the circumstances surrounding the terrorist attack.

There were no lies, just incomplete intelligence that of course evolved as more information came in.

 

Did Obama not claim the attack was a due to the anti-islamic video two weeks later when he spoke to the UN?

 

Here is a clearer picture...

September 12 -- President Barack Obama:

 

"The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. ... No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation."

 

September 12 -- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton:

 

"We are working to determine the precise motivations and methods of those who carried out this assault. Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. America's commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is no justification for this; none."

 

September 12 -- White House spokesman Jay Carney, in response to questions about whether the attack was planned:

 

"It's too early for us to make that judgment. I think -- I know that this is being investigated, and we're working with the Libyan government to investigate the incident. So I would not want to speculate on that at this time."

 

September 12 -- Obama, at a campaign event in Las Vegas, again uses the "act of terror" line:

 

"No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America."

 

He repeats the line again the next day in Golden, Colorado. "I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished."

 

September 13 -- Jay Carney:

 

"The protests we're seeing around the region are in reaction to this movie. They are not directly in reaction to any policy of the United States or the government of the United States or the people of the United States."

 

September 13 -- A senior U.S. official tells CNN that the Benghazi violence was a "clearly planned attack":

 

"It was not an innocent mob," the official said. "The video or 9/11 made a handy excuse and could be fortuitous from their perspective, but this was a clearly planned military-type attack."

 

September 13 -- State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland:

 

"Well, as we said yesterday when we were on background, we are very cautious about drawing any conclusions with regard to who the perpetrators were, what their motivations were, whether it was premeditated, whether they had any external contacts, whether there was any link, until we have a chance to investigate along with the Libyans. So I know that's going to be frustrating for you, but we really want to make sure that we do this right and we don't jump to conclusions. That said, obviously, there are plenty of people around the region citing this disgusting video as something that has been motivating."

 

September 14 -- Jay Carney:

 

"We were not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent."

 

September 16 -- Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, on CNN's "State of the Union" with Candy Crowley:

 

"There was a hateful video that was disseminated on the Internet. It had nothing to do with the United States government, and it's one that we find disgusting and reprehensible. It's been offensive to many, many people around the world. That sparked violence in various parts of the world, including violence directed against Western facilities including our embassies and consulates."

 

On CBS' "Face the Nation," Rice also said that, "We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned."

 

September 18 -- Jay Carney:

 

"Our belief, based on the information we have, is it was the video that caused the unrest in Cairo, and the video and the unrest in Cairo that helped -- that precipitated some of the unrest in Benghazi and elsewhere. What other factors were involved is a matter of investigation."

 

September 19 -- Jay Carney:

 

"It is a simple fact that there are, in post-revolution, postwar Libya, armed groups, there are bad actors hostile to the government, hostile to the West, hostile to the United States. And as has been the case in other countries in the region, it is certainly conceivable that these groups take advantage of and exploit situations that develop, when they develop, to protest against or attack either Westerners, Americans, Western sites or American sites. ... Right now I'm saying we don't have evidence at this point that this was premeditated or preplanned to coincide on a -- to happen on a specific date or coincide with that anniversary."

 

September 19 -- Matthew Olson, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, responding to a question by Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chairman Joe Lieberman on whether the attack was a terrorist attack:

 

"They were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy. ... At this point, what I would say is that a number of different elements appear to have been involved in the attack, including individuals connected to militant groups that are prevalent in eastern Libya, particularly the Benghazi area, as well we are looking at indications that individuals involved in the attack may have had connections to al Qaeda or al Qaeda affiliates, in particular al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb." Olson also said U.S. officials had no "specific evidence of significant advanced planning."

 

September 20 -- Jay Carney:

 

"It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Our embassy was attacked violently, and the result was four deaths of American officials."

 

September 20 -- President Obama at a town hall meeting organized by the Spanish-language Univision Network, responding to a question about the possible involvement of al Qaeda:

 

"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."

 

September 21 -- Hillary Clinton:

 

"What happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and we will not rest until we have tracked down and brought to justice the terrorists who murdered four Americans."

 

September 25 -- President Obama on ABC's "The View," in response to interviewer Joy Behar's question, "I heard Hillary Clinton say it was an act of terrorism. Is it? What do you say?":

 

"We're still doing an investigation. There's no doubt that (with) the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn't just a mob action. We don't have all the information yet, so we're still gathering it. But what's clear is that around the world, there's still a lot of threats out there." Obama also said "extremist militias" were suspected to have been involved.

 

September 26 -- Hillary Clinton:

 

"What is happening inside Mali is augmented by the rising threat from violent extremism across the region. For some time, al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and other groups have launched attacks and kidnappings from northern Mali into neighboring countries. Now, with a larger safe haven and increased freedom to maneuver, terrorists are seeking to extend their reach and their networks in multiple directions. And they are working with other violent extremists to undermine the democratic transitions under way in North Africa, as we tragically saw in Benghazi."

 

September 27 -- Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta:

 

"It was a terrorist attack. ... As we determined the details of what took place there and how that attack took place, it became clear that there were terrorists who had planned that attack."

 

September 27 -- A senior U.S. official tells CNN that it became clear within about a day of the Benghazi attack that it been the work of terrorists.

 

Separately, CNN National Security Analyst Fran Townsend reports that a law enforcement source told her that "from day one, we had known clearly that this was a terrorist attack."

 

September 28 -- Statement by Shawn Turner, spokesman for Director of National Intelligence James Clapper:

 

"In the immediate aftermath, there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo. We provided that initial assessment to executive branch officials and members of Congress, who used that information to discuss the attack publicly and provide updates as they became available. Throughout our investigation, we continued to emphasize that information gathered was preliminary and evolving. As we learned more about the attack, we revised our initial assessment to reflect new information indicating that it was a deliberate and organized terrorist attack carried out by extremists."

 

October 1 -- Nuland, in response to calls from Rep. Peter King, R-California, for Rice to resign because her remarks about the attack were, according to him, misleading:

 

"Well, let me start by saying that Secretary Clinton believes that Ambassador Rice has done a superb job. So let's just start there, and we completely reject any such calls here in this building."

 

October 1 -- Nuland, responding to a question about whether officials in Libya had sought additional security for diplomatic installations and personnel there:

 

"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."

 

October 2 -- Carney:

 

"I can tell you that from the moment our facility was attacked in Benghazi, the president's focus has been on securing our diplomats and facilities in Libya and around the world, and on bringing the killers to justice. At every step of the way, the administration has based its public statements on the best assessments that were provided by the intelligence community. As the intelligence community learned more information, they updated Congress and the American people on it."

 

October 9 -- During a background briefing with reporters, a senior State Department official responding to a question about whether the attack was a spontaneous assault taking advantage of a demonstration over the movie:

 

"That is a question that you would have to ask, have to ask others. That was not, that was not our conclusion. I'm not saying that we had a conclusion."

 

The background briefing contains detailed information about the attack, including how dozens of armed men stormed the complex as Stevens and two security team members took refuge in a fortified room.

 

"The lethality and the number of armed people is unprecedented," one official said. "There had been no attacks like that anywhere in Libya -- Tripoli, Benghazi or anywhere -- in the time that we had been there. And so it is unprecedented, in fact, it would be very, very hard to find precedent for an attack like (it) in recent diplomatic history."

 

October 9 -- Clapper, during a speech in Orlando:

 

Upon returning from a trip to Australia, Clapper said, he was "reading the media clips about the hapless, hopeless, helpless, inept, incompetent DNI, because I acknowledged publicly that we didn't instantly have that 'God's eye, God's ear' certitude" about what had happened.

 

He later added, in answer to a question: "The challenge is always a tactical warning, the exact insights ahead of time that such an attack is going to take place, and obviously we did not have that. This gets into the mysteries versus secrets thing. If people don't behave, emit a behavior or talk or something else ahead of time to be detected, it's going to be very hard to predict an exact attack and come up with an exact attack."

 

October 10 -- Under Secretary of State for Management Pat Kennedy, in congressional testimony:

 

"No one in the administration has claimed to know all the answers. We have always made clear that we are giving the best information we have at the time, and that information has evolved."

 

In the same hearing, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Programs Charlene Lamb testified that the State Department "had the correct number of assets in Benghazi at the time."

 

October 10 -- Obama, in an ABC interview:

 

"The information may not have always been right the first time. And as soon as it turns out that we have a fuller picture of what happened, then that was disclosed."

 

October 10 -- Carney, responding to questions about whether administration officials had misled the public because they did not want to acknowledge a terrorist attack:

 

"The president of the United States referred to it as an act of terror immediately after it occurred."

 

"I never said we don't know if it's terrorism. There was an issue about the definition of terrorism. This is by definition an act of terror, as the president made clear."

 

October 11 -- Vice President Joe Biden, during his debate with GOP vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan, responding to a question about what the administration knew about security requests from Libya:

 

"We weren't told they wanted more security there."

 

October 12 -- Carney, asked to respond to Biden's comments:

 

"The vice president was speaking about himself, and the president and the White House. He was not referring to the administration, clearly, since there was a public hearing for four and a half hours where it was discussed openly by individuals working at the State Department requests that were made."

 

October 15 -- Clinton, in an interview with CNN:

 

"I take responsibility. I'm in charge of the State Department's 60,000-plus people all over the world, 275 posts. The president and the vice president wouldn't be knowledgeable about specific decisions that are made by security professionals. They're the ones who weigh all of the threats and the risks and the needs and make a considered decision."

 

October 16 -- Obama, speaking to GOP challenger Mitt Romney at their second debate:

 

"The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people in the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened; that this was an act of terror. And I also said that we're going to hunt down those who committed this crime."

 

CNN

 

There was plenty of intelligence within hours of the attack, that it was planned and not a spontaneous mob.

 

What's left is that the Obama administration perhaps should have done a better job before the attack. Is that truly an impeachable offense?

 

I never said it was an impeachable offense, however, they have done a very good job of creating alot of confusion trying to cover their tracks.

 

Wish I had your style Guy. Unfortunately the old gray matter doesn't function as it once did. But something as serious as this Benghazi SNAFU has to be continuously keel hauled until all of the barnacles are scraped away. And regardless of the party in office, my concerns would be exactly the same.

 

Thanks!

 

But we are probably more alike than you think, Im just a young hillbilly. And I totally agree, regardless of party, there needs to be a bi-partisan investigation so the American people know the truth, regardless of what side it falls on.

Edited November 17, 2012 by navigator

[D H]

This is all your opinion, do you have anything to back it up?

All you need to do is google, or even better, think. How could the Obama administration have watched the attack on the consulate via the drones when the first one didn't arrive until after the attack was over?

 

The administration and the State Department have categorically denied claims that they watched any realtime video feed. The CIA has categorically denied claims that anyone was held at that CIA annex before, during, or after the attack. The Pentagon has categorically denied claims that the personnel at the CIA annex laser-painted those enemy mortars. That all of these denials are lies just doesn't make sense. Conspiracies don't work. On the other hand, Fox News That the claims in the right wing media are out-and-out lies that then promulgate from one outlet to another without further checking does stand up to merit. Fox News lies; blatantly so. They even won a lawsuit in that regard.

 

 

Did Obama not claim the attack was a due to the anti-islamic video two weeks later when he spoke to the UN?

He called in an act of terror from day 1. Yes, he connected it to that silly video for a week or two, but then again, so did the CIA. It took a couple of weeks to get the facts straight. That is not worthy of a Congressional investigation, let alone hour upon hour of (fabricated) coverage on Fox News.

 

 

Look at it this way. Which is better alternative: To err on the side of caution and wait a couple of weeks for the intelligence agencies to get the facts straight, or charge in guns a blazin' only to find out later that that yellowcake never did exist?

[navigator]

All you need to do is google, or even better, think. How could the Obama administration have watched the attack on the consulate via the drones when the first one didn't arrive until after the attack was over?

 

Reports I have read say the drone arrived around 11 pm, the consulate was evacuated at 11:30. No clear indication when the first attack ended.

 

The administration and the State Department have categorically denied claims that they watched any realtime video feed. The CIA has categorically denied claims that anyone was held at that CIA annex before, during, or after the attack. The Pentagon has categorically denied claims that the personnel at the CIA annex laser-painted those enemy mortars. That all of these denials are lies just doesn't make sense. Conspiracies don't work. On the other hand, Fox News That the claims in the right wing media are out-and-out lies that then promulgate from one outlet to another without further checking does stand up to merit. Fox News lies; blatantly so. They even won a lawsuit in that regard.

 

Why would a drone be sent in to provide real time intel only to be ignored?

 

 

He called in an act of terror from day 1. Yes, he connected it to that silly video for a week or two, but then again, so did the CIA. It took a couple of weeks to get the facts straight. That is not worthy of a Congressional investigation, let alone hour upon hour of (fabricated) coverage on Fox News.

 

 

Look at it this way. Which is better alternative: To err on the side of caution and wait a couple of weeks for the intelligence agencies to get the facts straight, or charge in guns a blazin' only to find out later that that yellowcake never did exist?

 

Petraeus, head of CIA prior to resigning ,testified yesterday he knew from the start it was terrorism

 

Obama on the other hand wanted people to believe otherwise.

 

....That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well – for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and religion. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion – we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.

 

I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our laws: our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech. Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. Moreover, as President of our country, and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so. Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views – even views that we disagree with....

 

nationaljournal

 

And then there was the UN Abassador Susan Rice's statements, Obama on The Letterman show, The View, the sixty minutes interview...

[Phi for All]

Reports I have read say the drone arrived around 11 pm, the consulate was evacuated at 11:30. No clear indication when the first attack ended.

http://articles.cnn....doherty-tripoli

 

 

9:59 p.m. -- A surveillance drone is directed to fly over the U.S. compound, but it is unarmed.10:32 p.m. -- The Office of the Secretary Defense and the Joint Staff are notified of the attack by the National Military Command Center at the Pentagon. "The information is quickly passed to Secretary Panetta and General Dempsey."

 

11 p.m. -- Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey meet with President Obama at the White House where they discuss the unfolding situation and how to respond. The meeting had been previously scheduled.

 

11:10 p.m. -- The surveillance drone arrives over the Benghazi facility.

 

11:30 p.m. -- All surviving U.S. personnel are evacuated from the consulate. U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and State Department computer expert Sean Smith were killed in the initial assault.

 

 

What further objectives do you feel were missed?

 

 

Why would a drone be sent in to provide real time intel only to be ignored?

I see what you did there.

 

If your scout reveals that aggressive action would be unproductive, NOT risking more lives is hardly ignoring the intel.

 

 

Petraeus, head of CIA prior to resigning ,testified yesterday he knew from the start it was terrorism

 

Obama on the other hand wanted people to believe otherwise.

Nice that you can really get inside the president's head like that. Does your mind-reading ability tell you why he would want that, knowing it would come out anyway, and also knowing that dealing with a terrorist threat in a swift, commanding way would have done his campaign much more good than lying about it for no reason or benefit? In your opinion, are these people really that stupid?

[D H]

Reports I have read say the drone arrived around 11 pm, the consulate was evacuated at 11:30. No clear indication when the first attack ended.

The attack started at 9:42 per the Pentagon timeline, 9:40 per the CIA timeline. The first drone arrived at the consulate at 11:11 per the Pentagon timeline, 11:10 per the CIA timeline. The last survivors were evacuated by 11:30. It was essentially all over by the time the drones arrived.

 

Why would a drone be sent in to provide real time intel only to be ignored?

That's a false dilemma. Just because the feed wasn't watched in the White House Situation Room or by the State Department doesn't mean it was ignored. Those civilians probably wouldn't even know what to watch for in the visuals from a nighttime surveillance drone. That takes trained eyes, and those trained eyes work for the DoD or CIA.

 

 

Obama on the other hand wanted people to believe otherwise.

Obama said from day one that this was an act of terror.

 

 

I don't understand what outcome you expect from these witch hunts. Did the President do something untoward? IMO, this is just a witch hunt, a serious waste of Republican political coin when the Republicans should be saving every political penny for the inevitable fight over the fiscal cliff. Yes, there lessons learned that need to be garnered, but those lessons learned are with regard to what was done / what wasn't done prior to the attacks. The more sensible Republicans (e.g., Marco Rubio) are starting to realize this. Focusing on what the administration did after the attacks is playing politics at the expense of the country. Focusing on what it did during the attacks is even worse political pandering.

[iNow]

Petraeus, head of CIA prior to resigning ,testified yesterday he knew from the start it was terrorism

 

Obama on the other hand wanted people to believe otherwise.

No, that is NOT what happened. Yes, Petraeus said he knew it was terrorism from the start. No, "Obama" didn't want people to "believe otherwise."

 

It was made abundantly clear yesterday that there was NO political interference from the white house, that the talking points they used had been edited by the intelligence community itself BEFORE they reached congress or the white house, that by the time talking points were given to congress and the white house any references to Al-Qaeda had been edited out to protect classified sources, and that everything ambassador Rice stated was perfectly consistent with the edited and declassified talking points she was given by the intelligence committee... who themselves signed off on and approved those talking points.

 

 

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/david-petraeus-testifies-closed-door-benghazi-hearing-17743698

[navigator]

http://articles.cnn....doherty-tripoli

 

 

 

 

What further objectives do you feel were missed?

 

Obama's own objectives when he said 'do whatever we need to do to make sure they're safe' to his national security team.

 

The attack started at 9:42 per the Pentagon timeline, 9:40 per the CIA timeline. The first drone arrived at the consulate at 11:11 per the Pentagon timeline, 11:10 per the CIA timeline. The last survivors were evacuated by 11:30. It was essentially all over by the time the drones arrived.

 

Was it essentially over, or did they evacuate, despite not finding Stevens body, because the 17t brigade could no longer hold the perimeter?

 

 

Obama said from day one that this was an act of terror.

 

He also said it was a mob reacting to the video, it really depended on who was in the different audience he's spoken to over the last six weeks.

 

I don't understand what outcome you expect from these witch hunts. Did the President do something untoward? IMO, this is just a witch hunt, a serious waste of Republican political coin when the Republicans should be saving every political penny for the inevitable fight over the fiscal cliff. Yes, there lessons learned that need to be garnered, but those lessons learned are with regard to what was done / what wasn't done prior to the attacks. The more sensible Republicans (e.g., Marco Rubio) are starting to realize this. Focusing on what the administration did after the attacks is playing politics at the expense of the country. Focusing on what it did during the attacks is even worse political pandering.

 

Investigating the deaths of four Americans is a witch hunt?

 

Thats rich.

Edited November 17, 2012 by navigator

[D H]

Investigating the deaths of four Americans is a witch hunt?

 

Thats rich.

No, it's sad. You are once again constructing a false dilemma. Nobody has said that this incident shouldn't be investigated. An attack on American soil (a US consulate is American soil) is worthy of investigation, as is the murder of a US ambassador.

 

The problem is that the phony ways in which some of the Republicans are hoping to conduct this investigation is as a witch hunt. The portrayal in the right wing media is even worse. They want Soviet-style justice: Give them a fair trial, then hang them (i.e., the outcome of the trial is preordained).