Benghazi Attack

[reg_indy]

yet a candidates conduct is unbecoming, and offends the president, but when a UN ambassador (and why was the UN ambassador given the marching orders?) blatantly lies to the American public no one is offended?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/20..._take_two.html

[Wizard777]

Everything has to be released. Government playing CYA is not an acceptable excuse.

It most certainly is. Their arses aren't the only ones that need to be covered. It's bad enough that 4 Americans are dead. Congress adding a dozen Libyans and possibly even their families to the body count by revealing to the world that they helped us won't make things any better. Another thing that is becoming increasingly clear is that the Republicans have alterior motives. Be it destroying Obama or our good relations with Libya. Anything that happened at the Emassbay is merely a vehicle for the alterior motive. It is quite obviously not the main focus.

[Phineas Finn]

yet a candidates conduct is unbecoming, and offends the president, but when a UN ambassador (and why was the UN ambassador given the marching orders?) blatantly lies to the American public no one is offended?

You have absolutely zero proof that Rice lied, only assumptions based on rabid partisan distortion.

If Rice knew that what she was saying was not true, what was there to be gained by lying? Certainly you're not claiming that she is unsophisticated enough to believe that the truth wouldn't come out.

I know that the right keeps claiming that the administration lied because they wanted to cover up evidence that they've been overselling their success against al-Qaeda -- an extreme stretch at best. As far as I've seen the only "evidence" of an al-Qaeda connection was an unconfirmed claim by a Libyan terrorist group.

In fact, evidence shows there was no al-Qaeda link.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct...ttack-20121020
http://rt.com/news/libya-attack-al-qaeda-873/

[Byng]

It most certainly is. Their arses aren't the only ones that need to be covered. It's bad enough that 4 Americans are dead. Congress adding a dozen Libyans and possibly even their families to the body count by revealing to the world that they helped us won't make things any better. Another thing that is becoming increasingly clear is that the Republicans have alterior motives. Be it destroying Obama or our good relations with Libya. Anything that happened at the Emassbay is merely a vehicle for the alterior motive. It is quite obviously not the main focus.

From the point of view of many Republican lawmakers......Byngo! They smell blood in the water so like sharks are having themselves a feeding frenzy, with dead Americans the last thing on their minds or they would be keeping quiet until after the investigations which the Republicans at least in the House are responsible for and are quite rightly holding because they have the majority. But that is not enough for some like McCain (no partisanship there) chooses to do his shouting in public before he holds the closed door meetings and of course picks soft targets to go after that can't fight back.

[Wizard777]

yet a candidates conduct is unbecoming, and offends the president, but when a UN ambassador (and why was the UN ambassador given the marching orders?) blatantly lies to the American public no one is offended?

When it involves a National Security Advisor named Condi Rice who thinks not trying to prevent planes from being Hijacked because "we didn't know they could be used as Missiles" is an acceptable excuse. When that same National Security Advisor named Condi Rice tells blatantly lies to the American public about WMD's in Iraq that directly contribute to an unnecessary war in which over 4,000 Americans were killed. To the republicans it's not offensive at all. Especially to Senaor McCain. Even with all that American blood on her hands and lying lips. Senator McCain still gave her a glowing endorsement to become Secretary of State. Uh huh.......

[dsummoner]

It most certainly is. Their arses aren't the only ones that need to be covered. It's bad enough that 4 Americans are dead. Congress adding a dozen Libyans and possibly even their families to the body count by revealing to the world that they helped us won't make things any better. Another thing that is becoming increasingly clear is that the Republicans have alterior motives. Be it destroying Obama or our good relations with Libya. Anything that happened at the Emassbay is merely a vehicle for the alterior motive. It is quite obviously not the main focus.

'Destroying Obama' is irrelevant to the issue. Obama as Obama is irrelevant to the issue as is protecting Obama. What is at issue are the actions of the CIA and State and how far up the ladder the authority for these actions went. Don't be blinded by the fact that it is 'your guy' and 'your leader' at issue. By now, you should have an understanding as to how cancerous the paradigm of secrecy is when it comes to the US government.

[dsummoner]

You have absolutely zero proof that Rice lied, only assumptions based on rabid partisan distortion.

If Rice knew that what she was saying was not true, what was there to be gained by lying? Certainly you're not claiming that she is unsophisticated enough to believe that the truth wouldn't come out.

She either lied or was incompetent. Pick your choice as the solution set is binary.

I know that the right keeps claiming that the administration lied because they wanted to cover up evidence that they've been overselling their success against al-Qaeda -- an extreme stretch at best. As far as I've seen the only "evidence" of an al-Qaeda connection was an unconfirmed claim by a Libyan terrorist group.

In fact, evidence shows there was no al-Qaeda link.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct...ttack-20121020
http://rt.com/news/libya-attack-al-qaeda-873/

The administration (especially State) is utterly blind when it comes to Qaida as an ideology (just as blind as Carter/Ray Gun were to what they were fostering in Afghanistan). Such blindness will continue to provide great comedy at the expense of the regime.

[musicmd]

yet a candidates conduct is unbecoming, and offends the president, but when a UN ambassador (and why was the UN ambassador given the marching orders?) blatantly lies to the American public no one is offended?

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

[Wizard777]

McCain and Graham aren't going to want to hear this. Will they ignore facts to continue spinning wildly out of control in the media?

CIA: We Didn’t Ask for Help During Benghazi Attack

When the CIA’s acting director, Michael Morell, testifies Thursday before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, he is expected to say that the agency never requested Europe-based special operations teams, specialized Marine platoons, or armed drones on the night of the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi, Libya, according to a senior U.S. intelligence official.


The disclosure may put an end to one line of inquiry into the Benghazi affair about why reinforcements from the region were not sent on the night of the attack. “Assistance from the U.S. military was critical, and we got what we requested,” the senior U.S. intelligence official said.

According to a Pentagon timeline made public last week, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta prepared multiple military responses from the region at around midnight Benghazi time, more than two hours after the initial assault began. Those orders included mobilizing two special Marine platoons known as Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team (FAST) from Rota, Spain, to deploy to Tripoli and Benghazi. Panetta also ordered a special operations force, training in central Europe, to deploy at the Signonella Airbase in Italy. Another special operations team based in the United States also prepared to deploy to Libya.

[Byng]

'Destroying Obama' is irrelevant to the issue. Obama as Obama is irrelevant to the issue as is protecting Obama. What is at issue are the actions of the CIA and State and how far up the ladder the authority for these actions went. Don't be blinded by the fact that it is 'your guy' and 'your leader' at issue. By now, you should have an understanding as to how cancerous the paradigm of secrecy is when it comes to the US government.

And that is why the different investigations are being held and as a product of those investigations, we could be heading for an 'Open Court' type public hearing like Iran/Contra, but we are nowhere close to that stage yet and shouting stuff from the rooftops as McCain and others are doing BEFORE even the closed doors meetings are held is IMHO doing the Country damage and/or a great disservice at the very least.

[dsummoner]

When the CIA’s acting director, Michael Morell, testifies Thursday before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, he is expected to say that the agency never requested Europe-based special operations teams, specialized Marine platoons, or armed drones on the night of the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi, Libya, according to a senior U.S. intelligence official.

This raises the question as to why the CIA did not ask for assistance.

[dsummoner]

And that is why the different investigations are being held and as a product of those investigations, we could be heading for an 'Open Court' type public hearing like Iran/Contra, but we are nowhere close to that stage yet and shouting stuff from the rooftops as McCain and others are doing BEFORE even the closed doors meetings are held is IMHO doing the Country damage and/or a great disservice at the very least.

US foreign policy is what does the damage (but that is neither here nor there in that it is endemic to Washington). Just as an observation, it is interesting to note that almost all (except for your's truly) that wanted open disclosure of the events under Bush Jr. are demanding secrecy here (with Obama).

[Byng]

McCain and Graham aren't going to want to hear this. Will they ignore facts to continue spinning wildly out of control in the media?

CIA: We Didn’t Ask for Help During Benghazi Attack

When the CIA’s acting director, Michael Morell, testifies Thursday before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, he is expected to say that the agency never requested Europe-based special operations teams, specialized Marine platoons, or armed drones on the night of the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi, Libya, according to a senior U.S. intelligence official.


The disclosure may put an end to one line of inquiry into the Benghazi affair about why reinforcements from the region were not sent on the night of the attack. “Assistance from the U.S. military was critical, and we got what we requested,” the senior U.S. intelligence official said.

According to a Pentagon timeline made public last week, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta prepared multiple military responses from the region at around midnight Benghazi time, more than two hours after the initial assault began. Those orders included mobilizing two special Marine platoons known as Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team (FAST) from Rota, Spain, to deploy to Tripoli and Benghazi. Panetta also ordered a special operations force, training in central Europe, to deploy at the Signonella Airbase in Italy. Another special operations team based in the United States also prepared to deploy to Libya.

They did not send a CIF force from outside the country because we already had one in place at the Annex a mile away. The fact that they were there undercover, the decision was made that they should break cover, act as a CIF force and go to the Ambassadors rescue. This they did with the decision made within 25 minutes of the first shot being fired. They went to the defence of the consulate, fought the attack off, withdrew everybody to the Annex where they fought other attacks of and then incredibly got at least 30 Americans out of the Annex evacuated to the airport where they were safely flown out of Benghazi. This operation was a success not a failure in that only 4 Americans were killed and as I stated earlier if it had not been that the Ambassador was killed we would have never heard about the other 3.

Those mistakenly accusing Panetta of not sending a CIF force in are plain wrong. Because we immediately sent a CIF force to the rescue by dispatching previously convert CIA Force to their immediate and successful rescue from the time it was ordered.

[Wizard777]

Republicans keep insisting that we have got to find out what happened in Benghazi. This is the most grave and serious issue America has ever faces and if we leave a single pebble unturned WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!

McCain Skipped A Briefing On Benghazi To Hold A Press Conference

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is demanding a special select committee to investigate the events leading up to the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya and has held around-the-clock television appearances pressing for a complete review of the incident.
But all of the senator’s media interviews and press availabilities may be interfering with his ability to gather information about the event. On Thursday morning, CNN’s Dana Bash reported that McCain chose to hold a joint press conference with Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) rather than attend a closed-door briefing about the attacks:

I have to tell you something that just happened on Capitol Hill, and that is our senate producer Ted Barrett just ran into John McCain and asked about something that we’re hearing from Democrats, which is John McCain is calling for more information to Congress, but he had a press conference yesterday instead of going to a closed briefing where administration officials were giving more information. Well, Ted Barrett asked John McCain about that, and it was apparently an intense very angry exchange and McCain simply would not comment on it at all.

Soooooo, Senator McCain why did you miss that critical and crucial breifing on Benghazi? We're Republicans, we don't need no stinking facts! It's all about feeling the hate. Besides if you go to those briefing they give you information. Then you can't go on TV and scream that the Adminstration won't give you any information. IT'S A COVER UP!

God help us the morons think they're incharge.

[Byng]

US foreign policy is what does the damage (but that is neither here nor there in that it is endemic to Washington). Just as an observation, it is interesting to note that almost all (except for your's truly) that wanted open disclosure of the events under Bush Jr. are demanding secrecy here (with Obama).

You have got it and the point that those who are accusing me and you of being partisan have their political blinkers on so tight in the feeding frenzy to get Obama that they can't see we are calling for exactly the same things we ranted on for years when the Bush administration was in power. The mind boggles!

[dsummoner]

You have got it and the point that those who are accusing me and you of being partisan have their political blinkers on so tight in the feeding frenzy to get Obama that they can't see we are calling for exactly the same things we ranted on for years when the Bush administration was in power. The mind boggles!

The ability to see the broader paradigm(s) should be expected but such expectation is, unfortunately, the application of the mirror image logical fallacy. The (D) or (R) by the name of the people involved should be irrelevant but apparently they are not.

[Byng]

...............sorry, in my rush to get out to the office I misread your post about secrecy! And did not notice that you were actually accusing me of wanting secrecy for Obama and not for Bush? You could not be more wrong my friend, I want the whole Benghazi incident investigated but through the correct investigations and all of those investigations are in place. If the closed door sessions don't then go on to include public sessions then I will be the first to join the others and scream COVER-UP! But I am not going to do it like McCain and others are doing until at least the closed door sessions are completed.

Where we differ is that you are already sold on the fact that you think that Benghazi was being operated as a CIA Black Site for holding and interrogating prisoners and I am not. Or though I concede that it is one explanation it is not the only explanation for the CIA being there. The CIA could easily have been there with the full knowledge of the Libyan Government working covertly on all kinds of operations that did not include the holding and interrogating prisoners. Have I cleared that up for you because now I have really got to run?

[Wizard777]

They did not send a CIF force from outside the country because we already had one in place at the Annex a mile away. The fact that they were there undercover, the decision was made that they should break cover, act as a CIF force and go to the Ambassadors rescue. This they did with the decision made within 25 minutes of the first shot being fired. They went to the defence of the consulate, fought the attack off, withdrew everybody to the Annex where they fought other attacks of and then incredibly got at least 30 Americans out of the Annex evacuated to the airport where they were safely flown out of Benghazi. This operation was a success not a failure in that only 4 Americans were killed and as I stated earlier if it had not been that the Ambassador was killed we would have never heard about the other 3.

Those mistakenly accusing Panetta of not sending a CIF force in are plain wrong. Because we immediately sent a CIF force to the rescue by dispatching previously convert CIA Force to their immediate and successful rescue from the time it was ordered.

Add to that if the consulate had a fire supression system or even portable oxygen. There is a good chance the Ambassador would have survived. To say he was killed in the attack is somewhat misleading. That is not exactly the case. His death was not a direct result of the attack. In fact when the attackers left the compound he was still alive and mobile. His death was a secondary result of the attack. He was over whelmed by smoke trying to evacuate the building. His cause of death was smoke inhalation.

[Byng]

Add to that if the consulate had a fire supression system or even portable oxygen. There is a good chance the Ambassador would have survived. To say he was killed in the attack is somewhat misleading. That is not exactly the case. His death was not a direct result of the attack. In fact when the attackers left the compound he was still alive and mobile. His death was a secondary result of the attack. He was over whelmed by smoke trying to evacuate the building. His cause of death was smoke inhalation.

Eactly, my wise friend. The CIA successfully defended the Ambassador because the attackers did not get to him and 3 paid for it with their lives when it was not their job or responsibility to defend him in the first place! Unfortunately he died of smoke inhalation as a result either of the attack by motors or a fire deliberately set by the attackers. This rescue by the CIA force was a huge success not the failure it is being looked on as being.

My question remains 'what in God's name was Stevens up to in the first place, that he needed to be rescued'?

[dsummoner]

...............sorry, in my rush to get out to the office I misread your post about secrecy! And did not notice that you were actually accusing me of wanting secrecy for Obama and not for Bush? You could not be more wrong my friend, I want the whole Benghazi incident investigated but through the correct investigations and all of those investigations are in place. If the closed door sessions don't then go on to include public sessions then I will be the first to join the others and scream COVER-UP! But I am not going to do it like McCain and others are doing until at least the closed door sessions are completed.

'Almost all' my friend.

The subordinate parenthetical was placed in my statement because I can only make a definitive statement for my own position.

Where we differ is that you are already sold on the fact that you think that Benghazi was being operated as a CIA Black Site for holding and interrogating prisoners and I am not. Or though I concede that it is one explanation it is not the only explanation for the CIA being there. The CIA could easily have been there with the full knowledge of the Libyan Government working covertly on all kinds of operations that did not include the holding and interrogating prisoners. Have I cleared that up for you because now I have really got to run?

Had the CIA been there with the full consent and acceptance of the Libyan government, engaged in above-the-board activity, then why the after-the-fact secrecy? That the global war on terror overseas contingency operations are ongoing, being expanded and involve the CIA is no secret and is out in the open. When even Camp Lemonnier is no secret then why the after-the-fact secrecy?