Benghazi attack - Terrorists or unruly crowd?

[Rex E.]

Originally Posted by Boreas

I knew about the American rootstock (it is just the roots) and the reason for using them but I never knew they were Missouri grapes. But Riley was a German???

John

No, not Riley...the folks that gave up the rootstock.

[piece-itpete]

Originally Posted by Boreas

We did, fool. Embassy and consular security is always the responsibility of the host government, not just for the US but for every country. There was Libyan security at the consulate but it was overwhelmed in the attack and around ten of them were killed.

John

So if we believe that the host country is unable to secure a site, we just allow it? Pfft.

Pete

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

So if we believe that the host country is unable to secure a site, we just allow it? Pfft.

Pete

We have three choices. We can renegotiate the treaty which establishes diplomatic relations, we can pull out of the country or we can accept the risk and stay.

John

[piece-itpete]

Soooo..... in an unstable Islamic country, where many love us, we didn't 'ask' to provide our own security?

No matter how one slices it it was a mistake. While it might not have been Obama's direct fault, even in the best case he's the CinC and the buck stops there.

Pete

[JBS...]

Originally Posted by Boreas

We have three choices. We can renegotiate the treaty which establishes diplomatic relations, we can pull out of the country or we can accept the risk and stay.

John

And that is what they did... Even after being told less than a month before the assault in emergency meeting that they could not defend against a coordinated attack.

So much for connecting the dots..........



The U.S. Mission in Benghazi convened an “emergency meeting” less than a month before the assault that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, because Al Qaeda had training camps in Benghazi and the consulate could not defend against a “coordinated attack,” according to a classified cable reviewed by Fox News.

Summarizing an Aug. 15 emergency meeting convened by the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, the Aug. 16 cable marked “SECRET” said that the State Department’s senior security officer, also known as the RSO, did not believe the consulate could be protected.

“RSO (Regional Security Officer) expressed concerns with the ability to defend Post in the event of a coordinated attack due to limited manpower, security measures, weapons capabilities, host nation support, and the overall size of the compound,” the cable said.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz2Ayp7g44c

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by JBS...

And that is what they did... Even after being told less than a month before the assault in emergency meeting that they could not defend against a coordinated attack.

Let's just suppose that this unsources leak printed by Fox News is legit. Now consider this:

In addition to describing the security situation in Benghazi as “trending negatively,” the cable said explicitly that the mission would ask for more help. “In light of the uncertain security environment, US Mission Benghazi will submit specific requests to US Embassy Tripoli for additional physical security upgrades and staffing needs by separate cover.”

As for specific threats against the U.S., the cable warned the intelligence was not clear on the issue, cautioning that the militias in Benghazi were not concerned with any significant retaliation from the Libyan government, which had apparently lost control in Benghazi. A briefer explained that they “did not have information suggesting that these entities were targeting Americans but did caveat that (there was not) a complete picture of their intentions yet. RSO (Regional Security Officer) noted that the Benghazi militias have become more brazen in their actions and have little fear of reprisal from the (government of Libya.)”

So, we have vague concerns about unspecified threats, based solely on the presence of militias in the area. The supposed cable specifically says that the Libyan mission is unaware of any specific threats or even that they're being contemplated.

It also says that specific requests and recommendations to enhance security would follow, presumably after the people on the ground had a clearer picture of what might transpire. There is no indication that such recommendations and requests were ever made.

And here's an example of the sort of "journalism" Fox perpetrated upon the gullible:

Fox News also asked, given the specific warnings and the detailed intelligence laid out in the cable, whether the State Department considered extra measures for the consulate in light of the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks – and if no action was taken, who made that call.


There were NO specific warnings and NO detailed intelligence mentioned in the article.

John

[whell]

Originally Posted by Zeke

I'm not precipitating a war over the amount of people we wound up losing.

Somebody, somewhere, made that call and I am FINE with it.

The calculated risk that security would hold up failed and got people killed. Going in guns a blazin' would get MORE people killed AND create a bigger problem.

I don't see any issues here.

Originally Posted by JBS...

And that is what they did... Even after being told less than a month before the assault in emergency meeting that they could not defend against a coordinated attack.

So much for connecting the dots..........



The U.S. Mission in Benghazi convened an “emergency meeting” less than a month before the assault that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, because Al Qaeda had training camps in Benghazi and the consulate could not defend against a “coordinated attack,” according to a classified cable reviewed by Fox News.

Summarizing an Aug. 15 emergency meeting convened by the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, the Aug. 16 cable marked “SECRET” said that the State Department’s senior security officer, also known as the RSO, did not believe the consulate could be protected.

“RSO (Regional Security Officer) expressed concerns with the ability to defend Post in the event of a coordinated attack due to limited manpower, security measures, weapons capabilities, host nation support, and the overall size of the compound,” the cable said.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz2Ayp7g44c

And there you have it.

So, here's what this looks like:

- the staff at the mission in Benghazi look around and see themselves increasingly being surrounded by hostiles. While the hostile forces - at least as of the August cable - had not telegraphed their intentions, it wasn't difficult to connect the dots.

- the cable noted that the Libyan government had lost control in Benghazi.

- The cable stated that there was a request for additional security. Hillary Clinton apparently was aware of this request, and at one point tried to deflect blame from President Obama by saying the decision not to beef up guards was her responsibility. “I’m in charge of the State Department’s 60,000-plus people all over the world [at] 275 posts,” she told CNN. “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.”

- However, the Administration and Clinton claimed from the get go, and maintained for almost 2 weeks, that this was a spontaneous attack in response to a video. At the very least, one has to conclude that the Administration and State very, very out of synch with the state of security in Benghazi. That's a problem.

- Reports now suggest that there was at least one drone diverted from a surveillance mission in Libya and placed on station 2 hours after the attack started, which was transmitting video of the attack on the consulate back to the State Department and the military where officials watched the attack in real time. Another drone was on station about 4 hours after the attack started. On October 25, Leon Panetta stated: "You don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's on, without having some real time information about what's taking place." So, Panetta had at the very least real time video feeds from two drones. So, he did know what was going on, and yet the decision allegedly was made to tell military forces to stand down. So Panetta was being less than forthcoming about the data that he had available to him about what was going on during the attack. That's a problem.

- Panetta also stated that they had forces on heightened alert world-wide on the anniversary of 9/11. However, no special alert was given to forces in or around Libya since there was no prior intelligence of an impending attack. Mr. Panetta also suggested that there's alot of "Monday morning quarterbacking" going on regarding the attack on Benghazi. So it would be Monday morning quarterbacking to suggest that an opportunity was missed to connect the dots about militant forces congregating in Benghazi in August, the loss of Libyan government control in that area, and the risk of attack in that area on 9/11/12?

- To me, its not about a calculated risk that the security assigned to the post might fail. Its the question about why it was deemed appropriate to take such an unnecessary risk. To classify this as a "calculated risk" suggests that there were options available to increase security in Benghazi, and that there was a decision not to do so. Its not like additional assets weren't available that could have been sent in to shore up security. So, what was the "calculation"? What was considered the "down side" to sending in additional security?

- The administration's canned response right now is that "independent investigators" are looking into what happened in Benghazi. Why does the Administration need "independent investigators" to find out who gave the order to stand down?

- AFRICOM General Ham apparently said that that the forces were available, but that no order to use them was given. Yet Panetta had claimed that his decision not to use force had had been made in concert with Ham and General Dempsey. Ham was highly regarded as instrumental in coordinating US military operations in Libya that resulted in regime change. Now, he's "been retired."

- The mainstream media, with exceptions like Jake Tapper, seem to collectively have a lack of curiosity about events in Benghazi and the Administration's response to them. However, the media does have a laser-like focus on what remarks a political candidate may or may not have made about abortion, or what pranks Romney may have perpetrated as a teenager.

Even someone who is "apolitical" would look at this set of circumstances and conclude that it seems damned peculiar.

[Wasillaguy]

Not only is the media not interested, some are complicit.

CBS parsed the Kroft interview on Sept. 12, only releasing the portion critical of Romney, and not the part where Obama said they suspected entities hostile to the U.S.

Facebook tried twice to censor postings saying they violated their conduct rules, and finally caved when they realized the meme was already viral, and that it did not violate their rules.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Wasillaguy

Not only is the media not interested, some are complicit.

CBS parsed the Kroft interview on Sept. 12, only releasing the portion critical of Romney, and not the part where Obama said they suspected entities hostile to the U.S.

Facebook tried twice to censor postings saying they violated their conduct rules, and finally caved when they realized the meme was already viral, and that it did not violate their rules.

Sucks when the whole world is out to get you, doesn't it? Just go lay your head in Mama Grizzly's lap and it'll all be okay.

John

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Wasillaguy

Not only is the media not interested, some are complicit.

As opposed to Faux who is shilling shamelessly for Romney. America understands full well that a unfortunate phuck-up occurred in Benghazi. What they don't believe is that the administration engaged in some big, bad nefarious conspiracy. Further shilling by Faux won't change that.