Sallow
The Big Bad Wolf.
"The Butcher of Benghazi", huh?
Hope you guys aren't still complaining about partisanship.
Hope you guys aren't still complaining about partisanship.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
🌟 Exclusive 2024 Prime Day Deals! 🌟
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Why Benghazi Matters
- Thread starter Wehrwolfen
- Start date
CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 146,585
- 69,698
- 2,330
Statists love their dictators faults and all
LogikAndReazon
Gold Member
- Feb 21, 2012
- 5,351
- 668
- 190
Surely much more discussion, analysis, debate and input from the international "community" was needed before such hasty action could be taken..............
These spontaneous uprisings due to internet videos could not have been forseen.........
Obama and the State Dept should not be held accountable for this "difficult" and unfortunate situation
Lets just forget about it, learn from this and move FORWARD
These spontaneous uprisings due to internet videos could not have been forseen.........
Obama and the State Dept should not be held accountable for this "difficult" and unfortunate situation
Lets just forget about it, learn from this and move FORWARD
Trajan
conscientia mille testes
I started a new thread in part because the latest line of smoke screens being set to cover for the Admin. are the usual misdirection, Fox News is reporting these 'leaks' and are making it up or taking license with the evidence they have been shown etc.
CBS by the way has had several other 'scoops' ala Benghazi, but hey, Fox is always a good whipping post eh?
CBS News/ November 1, 2012, 6:02 PM
Sources: Key task force not convened during Benghazi consulate attack
CBS News has learned that during the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, the Obama Administration did not convene its top interagency counterterrorism resource: the Counterterrorism Security Group, (CSG).
“The [Counterterrorism Security Group] is the one group that’s supposed to know what resources every agency has. They know of multiple options and have the ability to coordinate counterterrorism assets across all the agencies,” a high-ranking government official told CBS News. “They were not allowed to do their job. They were not called upon.”…
Counterterrorism sources and internal emails reviewed by CBS News express frustration that key responders were ready to deploy, but were not called upon to help in the attack…
Another senior counter terrorism official says a hostage rescue team was alternately asked to get ready and then stand down throughout the night, as officials seemed unable to make up their minds.
A third potential responder from a counter-terror force stationed in Europe says components of AFICOM — the military’s Africa Command based in Stuttgart, Germany — were working on course of action during the assault. But no plan was put to use…
“The response process was isolated at the most senior level,” says an official referring to top officials in the executive branch. “My fellow counterterrorism professionals and I (were) not consulted.”
more at-
Sources: Key task force not convened during Benghazi consulate attack - CBS News
Please read the whole article, and note- that a hostage rescue team was asked to get ready and then stand down.
so, the new question, putting aside who told Rice to say what she said and why the president continued to blame the video is;
why did they not convene?
CBS by the way has had several other 'scoops' ala Benghazi, but hey, Fox is always a good whipping post eh?
CBS News/ November 1, 2012, 6:02 PM
Sources: Key task force not convened during Benghazi consulate attack
CBS News has learned that during the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, the Obama Administration did not convene its top interagency counterterrorism resource: the Counterterrorism Security Group, (CSG).
“The [Counterterrorism Security Group] is the one group that’s supposed to know what resources every agency has. They know of multiple options and have the ability to coordinate counterterrorism assets across all the agencies,” a high-ranking government official told CBS News. “They were not allowed to do their job. They were not called upon.”…
Counterterrorism sources and internal emails reviewed by CBS News express frustration that key responders were ready to deploy, but were not called upon to help in the attack…
Another senior counter terrorism official says a hostage rescue team was alternately asked to get ready and then stand down throughout the night, as officials seemed unable to make up their minds.
A third potential responder from a counter-terror force stationed in Europe says components of AFICOM — the military’s Africa Command based in Stuttgart, Germany — were working on course of action during the assault. But no plan was put to use…
“The response process was isolated at the most senior level,” says an official referring to top officials in the executive branch. “My fellow counterterrorism professionals and I (were) not consulted.”
more at-
Sources: Key task force not convened during Benghazi consulate attack - CBS News
Please read the whole article, and note- that a hostage rescue team was asked to get ready and then stand down.
so, the new question, putting aside who told Rice to say what she said and why the president continued to blame the video is;
why did they not convene?
surely much more discussion, analysis, debate and input from the international "community" was needed before such hasty action could be taken..............
These spontaneous uprisings due to internet videos could not have been forseen.........
Obama and the state dept should not be held accountable for this "difficult" and unfortunate situation
lets just forget about it, learn from this and move forward
lmao
Mr. H.
Diamond Member
by directorblue at Doug Ross @ Journal: TWIN TIMELINE: What was happening in Benghazi and Washington
Last night I heard Newt Gingrich ask for a twin timeline to help illustrate what was happening in Benghazi and in Washington. Newt's wish is my command:
Some interesting observations:
Hillary Clinton's aspirations for higher office are toast: despite numerous requests for additional security, the State Department adamantly refused each time -- for, what would seem, purely political reasons. Those partisan games cost four Americans their lives.
The "Internet video" tale was an egregious lie foisted upon the American public by an administration committed to additional spiking of the Bin Laden football -- again, for purely political reasons.
Methinks any effort to distribute the Bin Laden movie/Obama infomercial before the election will be extremely distasteful for most American.
What are your thoughts?
Last night I heard Newt Gingrich ask for a twin timeline to help illustrate what was happening in Benghazi and in Washington. Newt's wish is my command:
Some interesting observations:
Hillary Clinton's aspirations for higher office are toast: despite numerous requests for additional security, the State Department adamantly refused each time -- for, what would seem, purely political reasons. Those partisan games cost four Americans their lives.
The "Internet video" tale was an egregious lie foisted upon the American public by an administration committed to additional spiking of the Bin Laden football -- again, for purely political reasons.
Methinks any effort to distribute the Bin Laden movie/Obama infomercial before the election will be extremely distasteful for most American.
What are your thoughts?
Mr. H.
Diamond Member
Let's just forget about the last 3-1/2 years and give him another 4.
by Herschel Smith The Captain's Journal » So What Were The Assets Available For Benghazi?
Weekly Standard has been busy covering the Benghazi scandal.* I had earlier remarked that:
The notion that we dont send our forces into harms way without knowing whats going on is patently absurd and false.* Simply said, its a lie.* We deploy Army Rangers to take control of air fields and landing zones in potentially hostile environments, for which we do not know all of the desired information; we deploy Marine infantry into situations of potentially unknown threats all of the time all over the globe; each and every time a patrol left the outpost at the Korengal in Afghanistan, they were deploying into potentially deadly situations without specific and detailed knowledge of the situation.
A reader at Weekly Standard writes in with the following:
one can find in Marine Corps Doctrinal Publication 1: Warfighting the following passage on pages 86 and 87:
We must have the moral courage to make tough decisions in the face of uncertaintyand to accept full responsibility for those decisionswhen the natural inclination would be to postpone the decision pending more complete information. *To delay action in an emergency because of incomplete information shows a lack of moral courage. *We do not want to make rash decisions, but we must not squander opportunities while trying to gain more information. *Finally, since all decisions must be made in the face of uncertainty and since every situation is unique, there is no perfect solution to any battlefield problem. *Therefore, we should not agonize over one.
Just so, and good find, that one.* But on another front, Bill Kristol covers the various finger pointing within the administration, just as do I.* But then there is this pregnant statement along with the link.
In response perhaps to the questions raised by Petraeus and Panetta, there now appears to be an attempt by some defense officials to suggest there really wasnt much more that could have been done on September 11, given limitations on the assets and capabilities available.
The link takes you to an article at AEI by Paul Wolfowitz.* Now comes the interesting part.* I need to cite at length.
From what I can determine from talking with someone who has spoken directly with key general officers and others involved in the US response to the Benghazi attacks, it would appear that contrary to Panettas basic principle the US did almost everything possible to protect our people once the attacks had started, though not in advance:
The Consulate was overrun in a matter of minutes, before any help was possible.
A team that appears to have been CIA personnel deployed quickly (and bravely) from the Annex to the Consulate and rescued everyone they found alive there. (Its not clear whether Ambassador Stevens had already been taken by Libyans to the hospital or whether they simply failed to find him.)
A mainly CIA response force deployed quickly from Tripoli to reinforce the Annex and facilitate its successful evacuation.
Decision makers in Washington appear to have been leaning forward, as they should have been. The militarys most capable rescue force, based on the East Coast, was deployed immediately (something that is very rarely done), but given the distances involved arrived at Sigonella only after the crisis was over.
Also, the* European command (EUCOM) deployed its number one counter terrorism force, which was training in central Europe, as quickly as possible, but it arrived in Sigonella after the evacuation of the Annex was complete.
Other special forces deployed to Sigonella but arrived on the 12th after it was too late to make a difference in Benghazi.
There was no AC-130 gunship in the region.
The only drone available in Libya was an unarmed surveillance drone which was quickly moved from Darna to Benghazi, but the field of view of these drones is limited and, in any case, this one was not armed.
The only other assets immediately available were F-16 fighter jets based at Aviano, Italy. These aircraft might have reached Benghazi while the fight at the Annex was still going on, but they would have had difficulty pinpointing hostile mortar positions or distinguishing between friendly and hostile militias in the midst of a confused firefight in a densely populated residential area where there would have been a high likelihood of civilian casualties. While two more Americans were tragically killed by a mortar strike on the Annex, its not clear that deploying F-16s would have prevented that. In any case, the decision not to do so was made by the tactical commander, General Ham, as it should have been.
Lets leave aside my personal feelings towards Wolfowitz (he helped to begin Operation Iraqi Freedom with too few men to tamp down the inevitable insurgency, thus leading to Phase II and III of OIF).* I dont have much fondness for him.
But back to what he said, this is a remarkable claim.* According to this claim, the Africa command (based in Europe) had no assets to which it could turn.* None.* Contrary to reports (that I have cited), there were no Delta operators at Sigonella.* There was no AC-130, there wasnt even Marine Force Recon, again, contrary to published reports that I have cited.
They were apparently all in the field, deployed across Africa.* No one was available.* There were no air assets available to assist the poor souls at Benghazi.* Not even an MP or cook could have responded from Sigonella.* The base (the American side of it, anyway) was a ghost town.* The closest asset was the Eastern coast of the United States.
I dont believe it.* Im not saying that I dont believe Wolfowitz, but I dont believe his sources.* How the hell does one run Africa command with no assets at your disposal?* Besides, this answer is too easy to produce and then move on after the furor dies down.
This leads me to the final point.* There are so many reports many of them false by design that the picture is worse by the day.* What happened at Benghazi happened.* The horrible picture developing before our eyes is one of obfuscation, dishonesty, diversion, lies and excuses.
Heres a note to the DoD and State Department.* Listen very carefully.* Wolfowitz says it would appear.* Thats not even nearly good enough.* We wont accept appearances, or anonymous sources.* There is a paper trail of deployments, locations, arming orders, force sizes, and so on and so forth.* There is yet another paper trail of orders, requests, directives and other communications that fateful night.
We wont stop until it is all public and assessed by all of us.* We will get it, eventually.* We will all see it.* We will know who did what, who said what, what assets were where, who lied, who equivocated, and who came clean.* We will name names.
The players who have any integrity left should come clean now and spill everything.* It will go better for everyone in the long run.* But it wont change the facts.* And the facts will be found out.* Thats our promise.
UPDATE #1: Thanks to Glenn Reynolds for the attention.
UPDATE #2: It occurs to me from the comments and from other remarks that I have seen elsewhere that we need to deal with one objection up front, i.e., that there wasnt time before the fire fight was over to transport assets to Benghazi to assist.* This is an illegitimate objection, since we cannot assume that the decision-makers at that time know what we know now (that is, that the fight would last about a half day).* For all they knew, the fight would have lasted for days on end, with Americans holed up in buildings awaiting relief.* Ex post facto objections like this have no legs.* They constitute excuses, but they dont explain the decision-making at the time.
Weekly Standard has been busy covering the Benghazi scandal.* I had earlier remarked that:
The notion that we dont send our forces into harms way without knowing whats going on is patently absurd and false.* Simply said, its a lie.* We deploy Army Rangers to take control of air fields and landing zones in potentially hostile environments, for which we do not know all of the desired information; we deploy Marine infantry into situations of potentially unknown threats all of the time all over the globe; each and every time a patrol left the outpost at the Korengal in Afghanistan, they were deploying into potentially deadly situations without specific and detailed knowledge of the situation.
A reader at Weekly Standard writes in with the following:
one can find in Marine Corps Doctrinal Publication 1: Warfighting the following passage on pages 86 and 87:
We must have the moral courage to make tough decisions in the face of uncertaintyand to accept full responsibility for those decisionswhen the natural inclination would be to postpone the decision pending more complete information. *To delay action in an emergency because of incomplete information shows a lack of moral courage. *We do not want to make rash decisions, but we must not squander opportunities while trying to gain more information. *Finally, since all decisions must be made in the face of uncertainty and since every situation is unique, there is no perfect solution to any battlefield problem. *Therefore, we should not agonize over one.
Just so, and good find, that one.* But on another front, Bill Kristol covers the various finger pointing within the administration, just as do I.* But then there is this pregnant statement along with the link.
In response perhaps to the questions raised by Petraeus and Panetta, there now appears to be an attempt by some defense officials to suggest there really wasnt much more that could have been done on September 11, given limitations on the assets and capabilities available.
The link takes you to an article at AEI by Paul Wolfowitz.* Now comes the interesting part.* I need to cite at length.
From what I can determine from talking with someone who has spoken directly with key general officers and others involved in the US response to the Benghazi attacks, it would appear that contrary to Panettas basic principle the US did almost everything possible to protect our people once the attacks had started, though not in advance:
The Consulate was overrun in a matter of minutes, before any help was possible.
A team that appears to have been CIA personnel deployed quickly (and bravely) from the Annex to the Consulate and rescued everyone they found alive there. (Its not clear whether Ambassador Stevens had already been taken by Libyans to the hospital or whether they simply failed to find him.)
A mainly CIA response force deployed quickly from Tripoli to reinforce the Annex and facilitate its successful evacuation.
Decision makers in Washington appear to have been leaning forward, as they should have been. The militarys most capable rescue force, based on the East Coast, was deployed immediately (something that is very rarely done), but given the distances involved arrived at Sigonella only after the crisis was over.
Also, the* European command (EUCOM) deployed its number one counter terrorism force, which was training in central Europe, as quickly as possible, but it arrived in Sigonella after the evacuation of the Annex was complete.
Other special forces deployed to Sigonella but arrived on the 12th after it was too late to make a difference in Benghazi.
There was no AC-130 gunship in the region.
The only drone available in Libya was an unarmed surveillance drone which was quickly moved from Darna to Benghazi, but the field of view of these drones is limited and, in any case, this one was not armed.
The only other assets immediately available were F-16 fighter jets based at Aviano, Italy. These aircraft might have reached Benghazi while the fight at the Annex was still going on, but they would have had difficulty pinpointing hostile mortar positions or distinguishing between friendly and hostile militias in the midst of a confused firefight in a densely populated residential area where there would have been a high likelihood of civilian casualties. While two more Americans were tragically killed by a mortar strike on the Annex, its not clear that deploying F-16s would have prevented that. In any case, the decision not to do so was made by the tactical commander, General Ham, as it should have been.
Lets leave aside my personal feelings towards Wolfowitz (he helped to begin Operation Iraqi Freedom with too few men to tamp down the inevitable insurgency, thus leading to Phase II and III of OIF).* I dont have much fondness for him.
But back to what he said, this is a remarkable claim.* According to this claim, the Africa command (based in Europe) had no assets to which it could turn.* None.* Contrary to reports (that I have cited), there were no Delta operators at Sigonella.* There was no AC-130, there wasnt even Marine Force Recon, again, contrary to published reports that I have cited.
They were apparently all in the field, deployed across Africa.* No one was available.* There were no air assets available to assist the poor souls at Benghazi.* Not even an MP or cook could have responded from Sigonella.* The base (the American side of it, anyway) was a ghost town.* The closest asset was the Eastern coast of the United States.
I dont believe it.* Im not saying that I dont believe Wolfowitz, but I dont believe his sources.* How the hell does one run Africa command with no assets at your disposal?* Besides, this answer is too easy to produce and then move on after the furor dies down.
This leads me to the final point.* There are so many reports many of them false by design that the picture is worse by the day.* What happened at Benghazi happened.* The horrible picture developing before our eyes is one of obfuscation, dishonesty, diversion, lies and excuses.
Heres a note to the DoD and State Department.* Listen very carefully.* Wolfowitz says it would appear.* Thats not even nearly good enough.* We wont accept appearances, or anonymous sources.* There is a paper trail of deployments, locations, arming orders, force sizes, and so on and so forth.* There is yet another paper trail of orders, requests, directives and other communications that fateful night.
We wont stop until it is all public and assessed by all of us.* We will get it, eventually.* We will all see it.* We will know who did what, who said what, what assets were where, who lied, who equivocated, and who came clean.* We will name names.
The players who have any integrity left should come clean now and spill everything.* It will go better for everyone in the long run.* But it wont change the facts.* And the facts will be found out.* Thats our promise.
UPDATE #1: Thanks to Glenn Reynolds for the attention.
UPDATE #2: It occurs to me from the comments and from other remarks that I have seen elsewhere that we need to deal with one objection up front, i.e., that there wasnt time before the fire fight was over to transport assets to Benghazi to assist.* This is an illegitimate objection, since we cannot assume that the decision-makers at that time know what we know now (that is, that the fight would last about a half day).* For all they knew, the fight would have lasted for days on end, with Americans holed up in buildings awaiting relief.* Ex post facto objections like this have no legs.* They constitute excuses, but they dont explain the decision-making at the time.
Obama supporters don't want to know.blastoff
Undocumented Reg. User
Barry wants everyone to wait until the investigation is complete so we will know exactly what happened.
Yet, without any investigation, he and his stooges repeatedly blamed it on the video.
It's "the police acted stupidly" redux.
Yet, without any investigation, he and his stooges repeatedly blamed it on the video.
It's "the police acted stupidly" redux.
Mr. H.
Diamond Member
Let's just forget about this and move forward.by Herschel Smith @ The Captain's Journal » Benghazi Inconsistencies
President Obama didnt deny assistance to the poor souls at Benghazi, or so says President Obama.
The White House on Saturday flatly denied that President Barack Obama withheld requests for help from the besieged American compound in Benghazi, Libya, as it came under on attack by suspected terrorists on September 11th.
Neither the president nor anyone in the White House denied any requests for assistance in Benghazi, National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor told Yahoo News by email.
On the other hand, the CIA didnt tell anyone not to help the poor souls in Benghazi either.
Breaking news on Benghazi: the CIA spokesman, presumably at the direction of CIA director David Petraeus, has put out this statement: No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.
The Department of Defense also isnt responsible.
Following a pair of denials by the CIA and the National Security Council to a Fox News story published Friday, the Pentagon has come under scrutiny for its response to the assault on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya. However, in a statement to The Atlantic Wire, a senior defense official says the Pentagon never rejected requests for military intervention in Benghazi. Not only that, the official said no such requests were ever made.
The Pentagon took action by moving personnel and assets in the region shortly after it learned of the attack on the Benghazi consulate, said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity. There was no request made for military intervention in Benghazi. To be successful, such an operation, if requested, would have required solid information about what was happening on the ground. Such clarity just wasnt available as the attack was unfolding.
Full blog at link.
President Obama didnt deny assistance to the poor souls at Benghazi, or so says President Obama.
The White House on Saturday flatly denied that President Barack Obama withheld requests for help from the besieged American compound in Benghazi, Libya, as it came under on attack by suspected terrorists on September 11th.
Neither the president nor anyone in the White House denied any requests for assistance in Benghazi, National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor told Yahoo News by email.
On the other hand, the CIA didnt tell anyone not to help the poor souls in Benghazi either.
Breaking news on Benghazi: the CIA spokesman, presumably at the direction of CIA director David Petraeus, has put out this statement: No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.
The Department of Defense also isnt responsible.
Following a pair of denials by the CIA and the National Security Council to a Fox News story published Friday, the Pentagon has come under scrutiny for its response to the assault on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya. However, in a statement to The Atlantic Wire, a senior defense official says the Pentagon never rejected requests for military intervention in Benghazi. Not only that, the official said no such requests were ever made.
The Pentagon took action by moving personnel and assets in the region shortly after it learned of the attack on the Benghazi consulate, said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity. There was no request made for military intervention in Benghazi. To be successful, such an operation, if requested, would have required solid information about what was happening on the ground. Such clarity just wasnt available as the attack was unfolding.
Full blog at link.
LadyGunSlinger
Conservative Babe
- Feb 6, 2011
- 19,589
- 3,348
- 280
Fox is about to report some new information that came in that has Senator McCain ticked off..
Uncensored2008
Libertarian Radical
that's how this is being spun?
Spun?
No, those are the facts. Rather than Al Qaeda being "on their heels" as Obama claimed, they launched a well planned and coordinated terrorist attack on 9/11. Obama, more concerned with reelection than the safety and security of the United State, responded by lying and having his staff lie, floating a wild tale of obscure YouTube videos and spontaneous protests.
But you knew this, and prefer to lie yourself.
Hey, Obama is too important for things like truth and competency to be considered.
Hack.
Uncensored2008
Libertarian Radical
He is a radical Muslim at heart, always apologizing.... I want to vomit!!!
He's an arrogant, prancing pansy. Obama cares only about appearance and was concerned ONLY with how this would affect his campaign. He flounced around unable to make a decision, because there is nothing OTHER than image to our Queen.
Neotrotsky
Council to Supreme Soviet
Hey
the small crowds loved him in Vegas,...
the small crowds loved him in Vegas,...
Uncensored2008
Libertarian Radical
Timeline of events, comments surrounding attack that killed 4 Americans in Benghazi, Libya - The Washington Post
A few related stories:
CIA denies calling off operatives on the ground:
CIA Denies Calling Off Backup in Benghazi - Global - The Atlantic Wire
CIA rushed to save diplomats on the ground in Benghazi:
CIA rushed to save diplomats as Libya attack was underway - The Washington Post
Damn, the Obama press is running cover?
Who woodathunkit.
Say, what happens if the DNC press starts questioning?
{CBS News has learned that during the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, the Obama Administration did not convene its top interagency counterterrorism resource: the Counterterrorism Security Group, (CSG).
"The CSG is the one group that's supposed to know what resources every agency has. They know of multiple options and have the ability to coordinate counterterrorism assets across all the agencies," a high-ranking government official told CBS News. "They were not allowed to do their job. They were not called upon."
Information shared with CBS News from top counterterrorism sources in the government and military reveal keen frustration over the U.S. response on Sept. 11, the night Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed in a coordinated attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya.
The circumstances of the attack, including the intelligence and security situation there, will be the subject of a Senate Intelligence Committee closed hearing on Nov. 15, with additional hearings to follow.
Counterterrorism sources and internal emails reviewed by CBS News express frustration that key responders were ready to deploy, but were not called upon to help in the attack.}
Sources: Key task force not convened during Benghazi consulate attack - CBS News
Hey Catzshit, you just stick with chanting "Ohhh Bahhh Bahhh Mahhh," leave the thinking to those of us with triple digit IQ's.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 31
- Views
- 176
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8478
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 481
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-