navigator

The problem here is many posters fail to see the obvious and claim that facts have been debunked.

There were previous attacks in Benghazi.

June 6, 2012

 

U.S. citizens are advised that there was an improvised explosive device (IED) attack on the U.S. Office in Benghazi during the early morning hours of June 6. There were no casualties. No one has yet claimed responsibility for the attack. This incident is a reminder of the fluid security situation in Libya.

June 11, 2012

 

Britain's ambassador to Libya was in a convoy of cars attacked in the eastern city of Benghazi, a British embassy spokeswoman has said.

 

On May 22, a rocket-propelled grenade hit the offices of the International Committee of the Red Cross in the city, blasting a small hole in the building but causing no casualties.

Questions are being asked about the preparedness of the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, after it was revealed that there were four attacks on diplomatic targets in the Libyan city in the months leading up to the killing of the U.S. ambassador on Wednesday.

 

Despite President Obama's administration claiming that there was no 'actionable intelligence' before the attack, on June 6th an IED was thrown at the perimeter of the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi and on August 5th, just over a month before the deadly assault an International Committee of the Red Cross building in the city was hit by rocket propelled grenades.

There were warnings of more attacks to come.

One day before September 11, al-Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahri posted a 42-minute video on Jihadist forums urging Libyans to attack Americans to avenge the death of Abu Yahya al-Libi, the terror organization's second-in-command, whom U.S. drones killed in June of 2012 in Pakistan. In the video, al-Zawahri said al-Libi's "blood is calling, urging and inciting you to fight and kill the Crusaders," leading up to a date heralded and celebrated by radical Islamists."

According to senior diplomatic sources, the US State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, and the embassy in Cairo, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and "lockdown", under which movement is severely restricted.

Three days before the deadly assault on the United States consulate in Libya, a local security official says he met with American diplomats in the city and warned them about deteriorating security.

Jamal Mabrouk, a member of the February 17th Brigade, told CNN that he and a battalion commander had a meeting about the economy and security.

He said they told the diplomats that the security situation wasn't good for international business.

"The situation is frightening, it scares us," Mabrouk said they told the U.S. officials. He did not say how they responded

Security was reduced in Benghazi weeks before 9\11.

Security for U.S. diplomats in Libya was cut in the weeks before the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, despite the North African country’s high-risk environment, according to a member of the security team assigned to U.S. Embassy in Tripoli.

 

“I felt like we were being asked to play the piano with two fingers,” Army Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, who headed a Special Forces site security team in Tripoli, told CBS News. “We felt we needed more, not less.”

The former security officer who testified, Eric A. Nordstrom, said he was told in a phone call in July that the deployment of the site security team, a 16-member American military unit based in Tripoli, could not be prolonged.

 

The military command that oversaw the unit, the Africa Command, was willing to extend it. But the State Department decided that it was not necessary.

 

“It was abundantly clear: we were not going to get resources until the aftermath of an incident,” Mr. Nordstrom said. “And the question that we would ask is, again, how thin does the ice have to get before someone falls through?”

I have posted links previously that show the streets were quiet shortly before the attack, The State Dept., CIA chief stationed in Tripoli and the president of Benghazi all said it was a terrorist attack, within 24 hours, and made no mention of a mob protest in Benghazi. So who came up with the mob protesting a video talking points? Maybe the re-election committee?

The only shred of evidence in this thread that it was a mob protest was one administration official claimed there were 20 intel reports that said it was a mob protest. And yet you guys use that one peice of hearsay as evidence to claim it debunks the numerous intel reports that said otherwise.

Add to that the lack of support during the attack, the half hearted attempt to evacute American personel after the attack and the lack of an investigation to this day, show where this event falls on Obamas priority list.

I am zealous about this because I liked Obama in '08. He campaigned for a transparent administration and campaign reform, among other issues that I liked his stance on, but what I am now learning, was more accurately, just rhetoric to get elected. The longer he is POTUS, the more the criticisms from the right seem accurate.

You call our intellectual honesty into question yet you call a video that sparked protests in 20 countries obscure?! Was it an obscure video that led to Pakistan blocking YouTube countrywide? Was it an obscure video that cost at least 49 human lives?

It was obscure, until it was needed to deflect attention, then Obama used Petreaus and Rice, the UN etc. to parrot the talking point.

Then why did President Obama say, the following day, that he would bring the killers to justice over this "act of terror"? It's pretty simple to comprehend that your assertion is false.

He also said it was a mob protest.

As long as any president is on top of things and shows a firm hand and a willingness to go after the perpetrators of an attack, his score would either remain the same or increase overall. Bush got elected to a second term despite misreading better and more detailed intelligence about the original 9/11 attack.

Would you consider taking a month just to get the FBI on the ground in Benghazi 'on top of it'?

So you think "let's investigate and get all the facts before we draw any conclusions" means "we believe EVERYTHING Obama and the media says"? Don't you think that's a strawman of what's really being said here?

Get all the facts? What else do you need to know?

1. The streets were quiet shortly before the attack began.

2. The State Dept. reported within hours it was a planned attack and made no mention of a mob protest.

3. The CIA station cheif in Tripoli reported within hours the same thing.

All within 24 hours.

Please accuse more clearly. What exactly do you mean by "playing both sides of the fence"? Are you accusing him of being the president AND trying to win re-election?

Obama misled people by claiming it was a mob protest, an attack on free speech, while other times correctly calling it an act of terrorism.

Who are "they"?

The Obama administration.

Nonsense. Stop seeing conspiracies everywhere you look.

 

The correct answer is that on September 14, Petraeus was testifying as the head of an agency. People who do that don't (or shouldn't) give personal opinions. He did it right; he gave the best information that the agency had at that point in time. In his recent testimony, he was asked for his personal opinion on the matter. He did not change his testimony. He answered two very different questions, under two very different circumstances, and at very different times.

The CIA station chief in Tripoli and the State Department never said it had anything to do with a mob protest.

The best information his agency had? Wouldn't that include his own boots on the ground and the State Dept?

By the time of this speech, the intelligence had become very clear. Please cite exactly where in that speech Obama said the video caused the attack on Benghazi.

 

Hint: He didn't.

I have already linked the pertinant points in the speech that highlight the bolstering of the mob protesting an obscure video all the while implying it was an attack on free speech and ignoring it was terrorism. It is pretty simple to comprehend the impact any mention of terrorism could of had on his campaign.

I hope you fully realize the complete and utter stupidity of a stance that, on one hand, touts your ability to "connect-the-dots" before all the facts are known, and on the other hand, questions the intellectual honesty of those you're discussing the matter with. It must be marvelous to have such an ingenious mind that you no longer need facts to support your conclusions. Why are you on a science site?

Well thats comforting, kinda gives me a feeling of fitting in. I just wonder when some started believing everything the POTUS said, and the way the media reports it?

The BS misled the American people.

In questioning our intellectual honesty in pointing out the flaws in your premise, you have shown yourself to be a simple partisan hack. You have lost all the credibility I was according you as a participant in this discussion.

Because, despite the evidence, you fail to acknowledge that Obama was playing both sides of the fence.

How are those blinders working that make you oblivious to all the other embassies that were threatened that day? Are you assuming that just because this administration isn't blabbing about them that other threats didn't exist?

I wasn't oblivious or assuming either, the conversation never went that direction. I am curious why security at all embassies, in high risk locations, wasn't heightened?

Ah, so impeachment when all the "lies" come out after the election wasn't worrying at all to the president. Got it.

If he wasn't re-elected then there would be no reason to worry about impeachment.

Which was part of the transcript I linked to. The added comments by Chaffetz should only go to show that the House, the State Department and the White House all had to prioritize. When you do that, you run the risk of being wrong, and second-guessing after the fact by those interested in smearing the judgement of those involved is pointless and cowardly, imo. I certainly don't blame the Republicans for their mistakes in budgeting on embassy security, any more than I blame any single part of what went wrong.

If the Obama administration had heeded the warnings of more attacks in Benghazi, the fact that 9\11 was approaching and previous attacks, instead of making campaigning a priority, then second guessing might be cowardly. If Obama reduced security in Benghazi, direcetly due to funding, he would have said so, but then that would have hurt his competence in foriegn policy, because most people don't allow their blinders to shape their opinion and would see that, inspite of the cuts, there was enough intel to support beefing up security in Benghazi.

Wow, that's just... weak. I mean, they even had Ansar al-Sharia claiming responsibility two hours after the attack, so why not play up that it wasn't al Qaeda, or that Ansar al-Sharia is a rebranding of al Qaeda as they struggle to retain their power? Why make something up that obviously falls apart fairly quickly as more information comes in?

He only needed a few weeks to get past the election. His statements of the Benghazi events changed depending on who his audience was.

 

You seriously don't even consider that the Republicans would be much more worried about their austerity measures being linked to security failures that caused four American deaths, and that's why they pulled their patented "blame the other guy first" maneuver? You'd rather try to gain support for more unbelievable scenarios?

If that was the case, Obama would have said so; all he knows is pointing a finger. Leaders take responsibilty, Obama is a good orator, not much else.

How much clearer can I be? I posted a link and commented on it as was done in the previous post.

 

 

 

This was my reply. With all of the thousands of articles having been written on the Benghazi mess, the old adage "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with B.S." comes into play. Well, this congressman was definitely outgunned, coming up against a well known CNN newscaster with an even better line of B.S. (Turn my world) oops! I mean my words around.

http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/10/rep-chaffetz-says-he-absolutely-cut-funding-for-embassy-security/

 

What is there not to be understood?

Rigney, I wish I could say it was due to us hillbilly's being the only one's capable of connecting-the-dots, I understood the point you were conveying, unfortunately intellectual dishonesty is commom place around these parts. Obama and brilliance go together like oil and water, however he seems to enjoy dumping heaps of BS on the American people. All one has to due is look at how he criticized others for their lack of transparency during the '08 campaign and then compare it to the transparency of his own administration.

P.S. Check your PM's

"Not appropriated very wisely"? Seriously, you're playing the hindsight card on how the funding was allocated? Republican Jason Chaffetz, congressman from UT, member of both the Budget Committee and the committee on Oversight and Government Reform, when asked if he voted to reduce funding for embassy security, had this to say:

 

http://transcripts.c...0/10/sp.01.html

I guess I shouldn't be surprised the way many posters here cherry pick the news that agrees with their political bent, but the lack of objectivity on a science forum is disheartening.

Rep. Chaffetz also said this...

“Absolutely. Look we have to make priorities and choices in this country. We have… 15,0000 contractors in Iraq. We have more than 6,000 contractors, a private army there, for President Obama, in Baghdad. And we’re talking about can we get two dozen or so people into Libya to help protect our forces. When you’re in touch economic times, you have to make difficult choices. You have to prioritize things.”

 

O’Brien responds, “Okay, so you’re prioritizing. So, when there are complaints that, in fact, that there was not enough security, you just said, ‘absolutely,’ that you cut, you were the one to vote against to increase security for the State Department, which would lead directly to Benghazi. That seems like you’re saying you have a hand in the responsibility to this. The funding of the security? How am I wrong?”

 

Rep. Chaffetz says, “When you’re in Libya, after a revolution… you [have to] prioritize things. And what clearly didn’t happen is Libya was not a priority. I believe what I heard is that it’s because they wanted the appearance of normalization. That’s what they wanted. And that fit with Obama narrative moving forward.”

 

cnnpressroom

 

Since there is only supposition and "maybes" and arguments from incredulity to support some kind of coverup on the part of the Obama administration, I think it's equally likely that House Republicans are using this blame-game to take the heat from their austerity measures and budget cutting. Why aren't Republicans outraged that their control of the House led to cutting security budgets that resulted in the deaths of four Americans? None of the coverup scenarios smeared on the Obama administration pass the stink test as well as covering up underfunding of security that leads to American deaths.

The cuts were for all embassy's security, it is up to Obama to properly allocate the available funding. Despite previous attacks at the Benghazi consulate, requests for more security, warnings of more attacks, security was reduced, including just weeks before 9\11. Reports of diverting funding to beef up security, in places like Benghazi and Egypt prior to 9\11 would have disrupted the al queada on the run narrative and could have hurt his FP and campaign.

 

 

That's not the yellowcake that got us involved in Iraq. Your article states quite clearly that it was there, stored in the same barrels, since before 1991. The fictional yellowcake from Niger is what D H was referencing. Perhaps you have trouble understanding D H or are so driven by political ideology that being objective is not possible.

Oh ok, right, it was the other yellow cake that supposedly came from Niger, I guess that means the yellow cake that was always in Iraq was not WMD's and nothing to worry about. Are you serious?

Yeah, you keep harping on that video when everyone else has realized it was just faulty early intelligence, backed up by officials in the Libyan government. It's been refuted as the cause, it was bad intel that got repeated because people wanted answers, at a time when giving up answers might endanger security at other installations. Why are you the only ones still blaming the Obama administration for using an explanation they had been given at the time?

And you keep harping the faulty initial intelligence when there are numerous reports that it had nothing to do with the video and that minutes before the attack began, the streets in Benghazi were quiet. And the Libyan President the day after said it was a planned attack and not a mob protest, were do you come up with this stuff?

I have only seen one report that one official said there were 20 intel reports pointing to the video as a cause, but there are no other specifics about the sources. There are numerous reports, with named sources, hours after the attack, that it was pre-planned terrorist attack.

Clearly, Obama cherry picked the intel to best suit his campaign, disregarding the facts and possible affects on our national security. The biggest problem I have is going forward, if all Obama can do is point the finger, he will never take responsibilty for his own errors and therefore these types of occurances will continue to happen. And the media has clearly shown its willingness to fall in line, lock-step

Citation with quotes?

DH did a fine job of cherry picking the quotes above, I will post links for context he so convienetly left out, shortly.

"he was no longer needed"? If what he said could be embarrassing before the election, it would be embarrassing after the election, too.

Doesn't matter after the election, its showing pattern of putting campaigning for re-election above whats best for the country. Petreuas misttress may have had access to classified info above her clearance, odd that they allowed it to stay under the carpet for so long. I can see no other explanation for Petraeus to change his testimoney from Sep. 14th, trying to save his job and legacy, to after resigning.

You seem to really think that this "narrative" is central to everything about Benghazi, am I right?

=Uncool-

I don't know at this point, but I did know better than to believe an attack on the Benghazi consulate on 9\11 was due to a mob protesting an obscure video. A mob celebrating the 9\11 anniversary would be easier to swallow.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong.

 

Here is what Obama actually said:

 

September 12, Sixty Minutes: “As I said, we’re still investigating exactly 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 happened in Egypt. And my suspicion is, is that there are folks involved in this, who were looking to target Americans from the start.”

 

September 18, David Letterman: “Here’s what happened,” and began discussing the impact of the anti-Muslim video. He then said, “Extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies, including the consulate in Libya.”

 

September 25, The View: “Well, we’re still doing an investigation. There’s no doubt that the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn’t just a mob action. Now, 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.”

 

September 25, UN: “The attacks on the civilians in Benghazi were attacks on America.”

So you selectively cherry pick what Obama said, with no links for context, and claim those are the facts. Yet you accuse the right of a witch hunt LOL.

Lets start with the speech to the UN...

At time, the conflicts arise along the fault lines of race or tribe, and often they arise from the difficulties of reconciling tradition and faith with the diversity and interdependence of the modern world. In every country, there are those who find different religious beliefs threatening. In every culture, those who love freedom for themselves must ask themselves how much they're willing to tolerate freedom for others. And that is what we saw play out in the last two weeks, where a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. Now, 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 every faith. 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 don't we 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. 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.

 

We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can quickly become a tool to silence critics and oppress minorities. We do so because, given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech -- the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.

 

I know that not all countries in this body share this particular understanding of the protection of free speech. We recognize that. But in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete.

 

The question, then, is how we respond. And on this we must agree: There is no speech that justifies mindless violence.

 

(APPLAUSE) There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.

 

washingtonpost

If you read the whole speech and cannot see that it was really a speech defending freedom of speech, because according to Obama, the video caused the attack, then check your blinders at the door and read it again.

I don't mind having a President who allows the intelligence agencies to take their time arriving at the right conclusion. I'd much rather have a President who allows the intelligence agencies time to get the facts straight than one who sends our sons and daughters off to war based on premature intelligence. With two sons in the military, the last thing I want is a President who calls things prematurely. If my sons are to give their lives for the country, I want their deaths to be for something that is real rather than erroneous, premature intelligence.

 

Remember that yellowcake uranium? It started a war. It never existed. What is obvious after the fact is that the initial intelligence that led to the Iraqi war was faulty. Note well: I am not saying that Bush lied. He did however send our country into an extremely expensive war based on faulty intelligence. The key lesson-learned by the intelligence agencies with regard to the non-existence of Iraqi WMD was that the intelligence agencies need to be very, very certain of intelligence that is actionable.

U.S. Secretly Takes Yellowcake From Iraq.

Either you are very un-informed, or so driven by political ideology, that being objective is not possible.

Two weeks to get the facts straight is not a long time.

You can choose to drink that kool-aid if you want, the bottom line is all the departments that reviewed the evidence take their orders from Obama. The President is the boss, and unless they want to loser their jobs, and possibly be charged with criminal charges of one sort or another, they pretty much have to do what the President says.

Telling everyone something that is an obvious lie is completely idiotic in this situation. If he just didn't want to say anything about it, he should have just said that they were investigating it, and weren't going to comment. Instead, they put out this nonsense story about the Benghazi attacks being caused by a Youtube video.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/16/politics/benghazi-hearings

The former CIA chief has said there was a stream of intelligence from multiple sources, including video at the scene, that indicated Ansar al Sharia was behind the attack, according to an official with knowledge of the situation.

 

Meanwhile, separate intelligence indicated the violence at the consulate was inspired by protests in Egypt over an ostensibly anti-Islam film clip that was privately produced in the United States. The movie, "Innocence of Muslims," portrayed the Prophet Mohammed as a womanizing buffoon.

There were 20 intelligence reports that indicated that anger about the film may be to blame, the official said.

 

The CIA eventually disproved those reports, but not before Petraeus' initial briefing to Congress when he discussed who might be behind the attack and what prompted it. During that briefing, he raised Ansar al Sharia's possible connection as well as outrage about the film, the official said.

 

Also see http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57550337/cia-talking-points-for-susan-rice-called-benghazi-attack-spontaneously-inspired-by-protests/

Thanks.

The CIA's talking points read as follows:

 

• The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.
  
  
   
  
  
• This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be evaluated.
  
  
   
  
  
• The investigation is on-going, and the US Government is working with Libyan authorities to bring to justice those responsible for the deaths of US citizens.

Also see post #367. The intelligence services clearly had multiple sources that hinted at a connection between the protests elsewhere over that film clip and the violence in Benghazi.

 

 

Oh, please. This is pure nonsense.

 

 

 

Not true.

 

First off, there were two separate attacks. The first was much more chaotic, less intense, and less advanced (e.g., no mortars) than the second. There was a four or five hour lull between those two attacks.

 

Let's go over some basics.

• Yes, it was a terrorist attack. Any attack on civilians is, by definition, a terrorist act.
  
• Just because it was a terrorist attack does not mean that it was Al Qaeda.
  
• Just because it was a terrorist attack does not mean that it was planned.
  
• Even if the second attack was planned (over that four or five hour lull), this does not mean that the first attack was planned.
  
• Those claims by Al Qaeda-associated organizations for responsibility had to be discounted to some extent. Terrorist organizations claim responsibility for things they do not do. You might be too young to remember the terrorism of the 1970s. Multiple groups claimed responsibility every time a plane was hijacked. Multiple groups claimed responsibility when planes crashed due to malfunctions rather than some terrorist act.

 

There are different levels of planning. That four or five hour lull indicates to me that the terrorists used this time to plan that second attack. The first attack may well have been unplanned, with the terrorists taking advantage of the chaos of the day. This was one of the many issues that the intelligence agencies had to address.

 

 

 

BS.

 

Obama does have Al Qaeda on the run. This is not a lie. Al Qaeda have radically changed tactics because of the deaths of key personnel and destruction of key facilities. Even though Al Qaeda has been decimated, Al Qaeda, along with the viewpoints that it espouses, are not gone. A big problem with terrorism is that small groups can cause a lot of damage.

 

By analogy, look at our own home-brewed terrorism. George Metesky, acting all by himself, planted 33 bombs and injured 15 people in the 1940s and 1950s. Sam Melville, acting with a small group of cohorts, was responsible for at least 8 bombings and 20 injuries in the late 1960s. Ted Kaczynski, acting all by himself, killed three and injured 23 others. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, with no support from others, killed 168 people. It doesn't take a lot of wherewithal to wreak a lot of havoc. Terrorist groups don't have to be big, involved conspiracies.

I do want to reply, but it deserves more time and attention than I have right now.

Cheers, and hope everyone has a great Thanksgiving!

I don't recall hearing anyone officially "running with" the mob protest story.

 

Who did that, and on what venue?

Obama did when he addressed the UN, appeared on The View, David Letterman and the Sixty Minutes interview.

 

That doesn't explain any kind of link between the affair and Petraeus's claims about Benghazi. In fact, it negates your original point - why would Petraeus now say anything different and therefore (according to your premise) act to ruin his name and legacy as a General?

 

What is your explicit link between the affair and your claim that Petraeus would lie or shade the truth?

The FBI ivestigation into the affair started eight months prior to his resignation, it is plausible that he was influenced by the fact that the administration held his fate, and legacy, in their hands. As long as they needed him to repeat the narrative, they kept quiet about the affair, as soon as the election was over, he was no longer needed.

Certainly seemed like dismissing it out of hand by saying "Regardless, [stuff about Obama]". You haven't even said a single word about House Republicans.

Because I agree, Funding obviously shouldn't have been cut, but it was also not appropriated very wisely. And maybe they too were getting drunk on the al queda on the run narrative and felt not as much security was needed.

You may want to look up what "blaming the messenger" means. It doesn't mean reacting negatively. Pointing out a false dilemma and asking the other person to at least try to not use them in the future is not blaming the messenger.

Apologies, I was referring to the way DH blames the right-wing media.

DH didn't say he had 20 intelligence reports; he said that others at the hearing had heard that there were "20 intelligence reports that indicated that anger of the film may be to blame."

Ok, so does he have a link to that news?

 

Uh. What?

Yes, Petreaus resigned two days after Obama's re-election, due to an affair with his biographer.

What, precisely, is that motive?

 

Again, please explain.

Protecting his name and legacy as a General for starters.

Just because it was planned doesn't mean that the planners couldn't take advantage of a protest. Your response is irrelevant to the claim.

And Obama needed to protect the al queda on the run narrative, so they ran with the mob protest story instead.

No, they didn't pay for the lie. The lie didn't cause them to die; whether or not Obama had said anything, the plan would still be in place and they still would have died. Therefore, whether or not Obama campaigned on that is irrelevant to the thread, which is supposed to be about who failed to adequately protect the ambassador. On the other hand, cutting $330 million in embassy security is obviously relevant; I don't see why you seem to be dismissing it out of hand.

=Uncool-

Im not dismissing it out of hand, the funds that were appropriated could have been used more wisely. There were previous attacks, warnings of more attacks to come and yet the security in Benghazi was reduced just prior to 9\11, when all security in areas like Benghazi should be heightened the highest level.

Can you please, please stop with the false dilemmas?

 

Can you stop blaming the messenger?

Actually, that's what Peter King said that Petraeus said in a closed hearing. That's a bit of selective hearing. Others heard more. For instance, that there were 20 intelligence reports that indicated that anger of the film may be to blame. It took time to disprove those alternate lines.

Link to the 20 intelligence reports?

 

 

2) That the CIA originally made the connection [between the film and the protests, and the protests and the killing].

 

The attack that killed four Americans in the Libyan consulate began as a spontaneous protest against the film “The Innocence of Muslims,” but Islamic militants who may have links to Al Qaeda used the opportunity to launch an attack, CIA Director David Petreaus told the House Intelligence Committee today according to one lawmaker who attended a closed-door briefing.

 

This was what David Petraeus' told Congress on September 14. See http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/al-qaeda-took-advantage-of-libyan-protest-cia-chief-says/

Yes, prior to resigning and being exposed for having an affair. Plenty of motive there for the Gen to stretch the truth. Now that he has resigned, I would think his testimony wold be more credible.

Besides, anybody with a shred of military experience knew it was a planned attack the next day when it was reported that mortar fire had killed the 2 seal agents.

Further, the next day, a Libyan official said it was clearly a planned attack.

 

4) The $330 million cut.

 

After poking around a bit more, it looks my statement of 22% cut is not correct. There are apparently two line items in the State Department budget related to embassy defense; I only found the bigger line item. Also, the final cut was not quite $330 million; the Senate restored some of the administration's request. Here's what CNN had to say on this, http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/12/politics/fact-check-benghazi-security/index.html:

 

Statement:

Biden: "The congressman here cut embassy security in his budget by $300 million below what we asked for."

 

The facts:

According to Democratic House Oversight Committee staff, the amount that the GOP-led House passed for two accounts that pay for embassy security in fiscal 2012 ($2.311 billion) was $330 million less than the Obama administration had requested ($2.641 billion).

 

A GOP House Appropriations Committee aide confirmed the House bill had less in these accounts than what the administration requested.

 

However, the final bill, after being worked on by the Democratic-led Senate, put in more money than what had passed in the House. The final bill, which passed with bipartisan support, gave a total of $2.37 billion to these accounts for fiscal 2012 -- about $270 million less than what the administration had requested.

 

Conclusion:

The GOP-led House did initially approve about $330 million less than what the administration requested, but in the final bill, passed with bipartisan support after adjustments by the Senate, put the amount a little closer to the administration's target.

Regardless, there were prior attacks to the consulate in Benghazi, requests for added security and warnings for retribution for the drone attack that killed Libyan terrorist months earlier. Obama made it pretty clear duringthe campaign he had al queda on the run and 4 Americans paid for this campaign lie with their lives.

Uh, no. Associating all of those other 9/11 protests elsewhere in the Islam world and the attacks on Benghazi was an obvious connection. After the fact, it turned out to be wrong. It wasn't a lie, it was just poor intelligence. It was the CIA, not liberal mindedness, that originally made this connection, and was the CIA that later refuted this initial intelligence. There was no intelligence failure here. Very often, early intelligence is not quite accurate, sometimes very inaccurate.

 

There is a failure here, but it's on the part of the right wing media and some in the Republican party. The failure is expecting initial intelligence to be perfect. It isn't, it never will be.

 

Good grief, the failure in the media is most are Obama's lap dogs, did you believe it was a spontaneous mob protesting a youtube video?

If the initial intelligence wasn't perfect you might have a point, but the head of the CIA at the time has testified he knew it was terrorism from the start, which was accurate.

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).

You act surprised, as if unaware that it happens on both sides, its not just a right-wing conspiracy. It does sound like we are in agreement that there needs to be a thorough investigation though.

The only way I see anything even remotely close to what you descibe happening is if some how it was proven that Obama put these Americans life in danger by making damage control for his campaign a priority over their safety.

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.

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...

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.

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.

 

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.

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.

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.

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.

Terrorists did. Obviously.

 

That's obviously not the answer you were looking for, rigney. What you appear to want is for all of us to admit that

1. Prior to the attack, the Obama administration repeatedly ignored requests for improved security at the Benghazi consulate.
   
2. The CIA held prisoners at that nearby CIA annex.
   
3. The attack was a carefully planned Al Qaeda operation.
   
4. The attack was a near-continuous, seven hour long fire fight.
   
5. The administration watched the attack live from the White House situation room.
   
6. The CIA and DoD were told from the highest levels to stand down during the attack.
   
7. The administration knew from the onset that this was an Al Qaeda attack.
   
8. The administration blatantly lied about the nature of the attack for weeks after the attack.

Except for #3 (which we don't know yet), these are all lies put out by Fox News.

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.

1. abc news

"Republicans on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform have released new documents backing up claims by security personnel previously station in Libya that there was a shortage of security personnel in Benghazi.

The documents contain previously unreleased cables from Ambassador Stevens and his staff reflecting concerns about safety in the country."

washingtontimes

Obama knew about the attack, ignored three requests for help.

2. Many news outlets have reported the statements made by Mrs. Broadwell that the CIA was holding prisoners, thats what news agencies do.

washingtonpost

usatoday

guardian

3. Hard to see anybody, with any military experience, that objectively looks at the details of the attack, come to a different conclusion.

4. Are you claiming the attack did'nt take place over seven hour period? There are testimonies and timelines that show it did.

AP

5. I guess you were unaware that there was a drone overhead during the attack.

The attack began at about 9:40 p.m. local time in Benghazi. Less than 20 minutes later, the U.S. military began moving an unarmed drone to a position over Benghazi, so it could provide real time intelligence to the CIA team on the ground. The CIA team went to aid the Americans at the consulate. The drone arrived shortly after 11 p.m. By 11:30 p.m., a CIA team was able to get all the Americans out of the compound.

See the AP link in #4

6. Not sure about the CIA or DOD, but a quick seach for General Carter Ham and you will find evidence that he was relieved of his duties for preparing a rescue team after ignoring an order told to stand down.

7. There is little evidence to support this, but there are some that claimed to know very early.

In the days after the assault, counterterrorism officials expressed dismay over what they interpreted as the Obama Administration's unwillingness to acknowledge that the attack was terrorism; and their opinion that resources which could have helped were excluded.

 

Counterterrorism officials from two agencies said they concluded almost immediately that the attack was by terrorists and was not spontaneous. "I came to this conclusion as soon as I heard the mortar rounds were impacting on top of the building our people were occupying," says one. "The position of the mortar must be plotted on a map, the target would have to be plotted, computations would be calculated that would result in the proper mortar tube elevation and the correct number of powder bags to be attached to the rounds."

cbs news

8. Two weeks after the attack, Obama went in front of the UN blaming the video, blatanly lieing about the nature of the attack.

The fact that there are different definitions has already been discussed. Did you read the whole thread?

 

Do you happen to know what cut off date the US uses for " gestion period"?

It logically can't be zero, and if they take normal gestation- about 9 months- as the cut-off then they are missing out a lot of children who are born prematurely.

The data you cited show that in the UK for example, the cut-off is 28 weeks.

wikipedia

In the United States, there is no standard definition of the term 'stillbirth'.[12] The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention collects statistical information on "live births, fetal deaths, and induced termination of pregnancy" from 57 reporting areas in the United States. Each reporting area has different guidelines and definitions for what is being reported; many do not use the term "stillbirth" at all. The federal guidelines suggests (at page 1) that fetal death and stillbirth can be interchangeable terms. The CDC definition of "fetal death" is based on the definition promulgated by the World Health Organization in 1950 (see section above on Canada). Researchers are learning more about the long term psychiatric sequelae of traumatic birth and believe the effects may be intergenerational [16]

 

The federal guidelines recommend reporting those fetal deaths whose birth weight is over 12.5 oz (350g), or those more than 20 weeks gestation. Forty-one areas use a definition very similar to the federal definition, thirteen areas use a shortened definition of fetal death, and three areas have no formal definition of fetal death. Only 11 areas specifically use the term 'stillbirth', often synonymously with late fetal death, however they are split between whether stillbirths are "irrespective of the duration of pregnancy", or whether some age or weight constraint is applied. A movement in the U.S. has changed the way that stillbirths are documented through vital records. Previously, only the deaths were reported. However 27 states have enacted legislation that offers some variation of a birth certificate as an option for parents who choose to pay for one MAB Legislative Page [MAB legislative page]

20 weeks or 350g, stricter than any of the of the countries using the statute of limitations.

To be blunt, you should do it because you recognise that it is folly to pay twice as much for a system that produces more dead babies.

 

Are you aware that many countries use very different methods to report a stillbirth? Weight, length, length of pregnancy are all used to define a stillbirth, as well as signs of life.

Here is the statute of limitations for the 'stillbirths' who show signs of life and/or survive. So if a child survives a day or 11 months, but doesnt meet those requirements, it is still not reported as an infant mortality, instead reported as a still birth. In the US, once the gestation period is passed(20 weeks), if the baby shows any sign of life, even for just a second, with the placenta and umbillical cord still attached, and then passes, it is reported as an infant mortality.

To me, the fact that the US is still within 5 deaths per 1000, from the countries with the lowest infant mortality rates is astounding!

What I don't understand is why the numerous violations and penalties were ignored for so long.

BP had 760 safety violations in the past five years and paid $373 million in fines, Sullivan said. By contrast, Sunoco and ConocoPhillips each had eight safety violations and ExxonMobil just one, Sullivan said.

There are other reports of BP not performing tests, using a sub-par BOP and casing strings, ignoring warning signs for months leading up to the leak, meanwhile the Interior Department exempted BP from performing an analysis of deep water drilling in the GOM. Back in June, the EPA told BP to reduce the amounts of Corexit and find a better dispersant within 24 hours. The way BP routinely brushed it off and continued using Corexit in untested methods and amounts suggests it was not the first time BP abjected the EPA's authority. The Deep water Horizon just left the Tiber field after capping a 33k' well, set a record for the GOM. Confidence was flying high and pockets were getting full, problem was they were behind schedule and it was costing BP half million $ a day at the Macondo site. It looks to me like BP had control of the reigns while the DOI was snookered looking the otherway, at the royalties.

But I think the problem is more than just lack of oversight. For one, there are only 60 inspectors for over 4,000 sites.

WASHINGTON — Oil and natural gas drilling technology is moving so fast that government inspectors can't keep up, Frank Rusco, director of natural resources and the environment for the Government Accountability Office, told Congress on Thursday.

 

"The knowledge required to understand the technology in the deep Gulf has to evolve as the technology evolves," he said. The Interior Department "has been challenged in keeping abreast of technology and having enough of the right expert staff on hand."

 

The department has "not kept pace with the oil industry," he said in testimony to the House subcommittee on energy and mineral resources.

 

Rusco said the Minerals Management Service — the Interior Department agency responsible for regulating drilling operations — has not provided its inspectors with proper training or up-to-date inspection tools.

 

He said inspectors are often forced to document inspection results on paper, despite agency efforts to provide employees with mobile computing technology. Mobile tools would let inspectors quickly reference technical information and upload inspection findings while still in the field, giving the Minerals Management Service almost immediate access to the information.

 

"We do have concerns about a systemwide and pervasive problem of keeping up with technology," said Rusco of the GAO, which is the investigative arm of Congress.

 

Mary Kendall, acting inspector general of the Department of Interior, told the panel that training programs, developed between 1984 and 1991, "have not kept pace with the technological advancements occurring within the industry."

 

She also said the agency has trouble competing with industry wages when recruiting new inspectors. High turnover rates mean inspectors mostly receive on-the-job training, she said, and the total number of inspectors in the Gulf of Mexico is extremely low — about 60 inspectors for 4,000 oil production facilities, compared with 10 inspectors for 23 facilities on the West Coast.

 

Rep. John Sarbanes, D-Md., said the oil industry sees the agency as a joke, which hampers its effectiveness. "We've got to figure out how to make the agency more relevant so the industry actually cares when they show up for their inspection," he said.

 

Rep. Bill Cassidy, R-La., told Robert Abbey, acting director of the Minerals Management Service, that it "seems like the guys on the rig are miles ahead of the actual inspectors." Abbey acknowledged the gap as well as the agency's need for more inspectors.

 

"The MMS does have capable engineers employed," Abbey replied. "We are very fortunate to have good engineers working within this organization. ... Do we have enough of that expertise? No."

 

Rusco said another reason for inspectors' ineffectiveness is the Interior Department's focus on drilling and production, rather than inspections.

 

The Obama administration is reorganizing the agency into three separate entities so that its focus on collecting royalties from oil and natural gas producers is separate from safety inspections.

 

And then theres that.