Next Debate will have this to deal with this

[crashmister]

Here's a time line of what was said and when. One thing of note here, what everybodies been calling a "Consulate" In Benghazi, wasn't a "consulate" what it was is unclear. I also found this morning that the "Annex" on the compound is not the same "Annex" with the SSF. They were in an "Anex safe house" 2 miles away and had to fight their way to and from the compound.
That same SSF was the source of the first and only reports of a demonstration that turned into an attack. While you're absolutely right that OB did not use the phrase "terroist attack" for almost 2 weeks, it's pretty clear to me at least he said it was an attack and called it an act of terror at that time. Why he backed off that I can't say. I can say there are a # of possible reasons, most of which are political. So you're not wrong there either. But what I'm also seeing is "You didn't build that" all over again.
Wall street Journal said the intellegence pointed to Libyan militias at first and then to members of those militias. It took time to link them with known terror groups. I won't say I buy that or anything else for that matter.
I will say that it's starting to look more like the Consulate in Benghazi was a CIA spook factory. That was evident to every reporter covering the Issa hearing. My problem is the way this is going and has gone, will get in the way of fixing the problem.
Did OB try and protect himself politically? Yeah, that's pretty clear.
Did the pugs blow this up for political reasons? Yeah, that's also very clear.
Has the media done a good job? If grasping at straws is a good job, then yeah. But the reality is not at all.
Like I said, I'll wait for the investigation to report what they found. "If" That ever actually happens.

We are still doing an investigation.”

— President Obama, Sept. 25, 2012

In any kind of confused overseas event, initial reports are often wrong. But the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, in which four Americans were killed, including the ambassador, is a case study of how an administration can carefully keep the focus as long as possible on one storyline — and then turn on a dime when it is no longer tenable.

For political reasons, it certainly was in the White House’s interests to not portray the attack as a terrorist incident, especially one that took place on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. Instead the administration kept the focus on what was ultimately a red herring — anger in the Arab world over anti-Muslim video posted on You Tube. With key phrases and message discipline, the administration was able to conflate an attack on the U.S. Embassy in Egypt — which apparently was prompted by the video — with the deadly assault in Benghazi.

Officials were also able to dismiss pointed questions by referring to an ongoing investigation.

Ultimately, when the head of the National Counterterrorism Center was asked pointblank on Capitol Hill whether it was a an act of terror — and he agreed — the administration talking points began to shift. (Tough news reporting — as well as statements by Libya’s president — also played a role.) Yet President Obama himself resisted using the “t” word, even as late as Tuesday, while keeping the focus on the video in his speech to the U.N. General Assembly.

On Wednesday, however, White House spokesman Jay Carney acknowledged also that Obama himself believes the attack was terrorism — and so more than two weeks after the attack the Rubicon finally was crossed.

As a reader service, we have compiled a comprehensive timeline of administration statements, showing the evolution in talking points, with key phrases highlighted in bold. Many readers sent suggestions for this timeline, for which we are deeply grateful.

We will leave it to readers to reach their own conclusions on whether this is merely the result of the fog of war and diplomacy — or a deliberate effort to steer the storyline away from more politically damaging questions. After all, in a competitive election, two weeks is a lifetime.



Initially, ‘an attack’ — and focus on a video


“Yesterday, our U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, was attacked. Heavily armed militants assaulted the compound and set fire to our buildings. American and Libyan security personnel battled the attackers together. Four Americans were killed. They included Sean Smith, a Foreign Service information management officer, and our Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens. We are still making next of kin notifications for the other two individuals.”

— Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, State Department Treaty room, Sept. 12

“The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. We're working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats. I've also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world. And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.

“Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts…No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.”

— President Obama, Rose Garden statement, Sept. 12

(Note: we added this statement to the timeline after Josh Gerstein of Politico asserted that the phrasing “acts of terror” showed Obama acknowledged “terrorism” was behind the attack. From our many years of covering diplomacy we would say there is a world of difference, but readers can draw their own conclusions.)

“Frankly, we are not in a position to speak any further to the perpetrators of this attack. It was clearly a complex attack. We’re going to have to do a full investigation.”

— Unnamed senior administration official, briefing reporters in a conference call, Sept. 12

“I think it’s important to note with regards to that protest that there are protests taking place in different countries across the world that are responding to the movie that has circulated on the Internet. As Secretary Clinton said today, the United States government had nothing to do with this movie. We reject its message and its contents. We find it disgusting and reprehensible. America has a history of religious tolerance and respect for religious beliefs that goes back to our nation’s founding. We are stronger because we are the home to people of all religions, including millions of Muslims, and we reject the denigration of religion. We also believe that there is no justification at all for responding to this movie with violence.”

— White House spokesman Jay Carney, news briefing, Sept. 13

“This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over n awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with. It is hard for the American people to make sense of that because it is senseless, and it is totally unacceptable.”

— Clinton, transfer of remains ceremony, Sept. 14

“I have seen that report, and the story is absolutely wrong. We were not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent. That report is false.”

— Carney, news briefing, Sept. 14

“Based on the best information we have to date ... it began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo, where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.... We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.”

— Susan E. Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Sept. 16

“We had a substantial security presence with our personnel and the consulate in Benghazi. Tragically, two of the four Americans who were killed were there providing security. That was their function. And indeed, there were many other colleagues who were doing the same with them.”

— Rice, on ABC’s “This Week,” Sept. 16

(Note: the U.S. post was not a consulate and its precise role is still a mystery.)

“The way these perpetrators acted and moved, and their choosing the specific date for this so-called demonstration, this leaves us with no doubt that this was preplanned, predetermined.”

— Mohamed Yusuf al-Magariaf, president of Libya’s General National Congress, Sept. 16

QUESTION: “Simply on the basis of what Ambassador Rice has publicly disclosed, does the United States Government regard what happened in Benghazi as an act of terror?”

SPOKESWOMAN VICTORIA NULAND: “Again, I’m not going to put labels on this until we have a complete investigation, okay?”

QUESTION: “You don’t — so you don’t regard it as an act of terrorism?”

NULAND: “I don’t think we know enough. I don’t think we know enough. And we’re going to continue to assess. She gave our preliminary assessment. We’re going to have a full investigation now, and then we’ll be in a better position to put labels on things, okay?”

— exchange at State Department briefing, Sept. 17

“Well, you’re conveniently conflating two things, which is the anniversary of 9/11 and the incidents that took place, which are under investigation and the cause and motivation behind them will be decided by that investigation.”

— Carney, news briefing, Sept. 17



Suddenly, a shift to a ‘terrorist attack’


“I would say yes, they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy….The best information we have now, the facts that we have now indicate that this was an opportunistic attack on our embassy. The attack began and evolved and escalated over several hours at our embassy — our diplomatic post in Benghazi. It evolved and escalated over several hours.

“It appears that individuals who were certainly well-armed seized on the opportunity presented as the events unfolded that evening and into the — into the morning hours of September 12th. We do know that a number of militants in the area, as I mentioned, are well-armed and maintain those arms. What we don't have at this point is specific intelligence that there was a significant advanced planning or coordination for this attack.

“We are focused on who was responsible for this attack. 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 in 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's affiliates; in particular, al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.”

— Mathew Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, testimony before Congress, Sept. 19, after being asked a direct question.

CNN reports on Sept. 19 that Ambassador Christopher Stevens had been worried by the security threats in Benghazi. CNN later acknowledged the information came from Steven’s journal.

“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. So, again, that's self- evident.
“He also made clear that at this point, based on the information he has — and he is briefing the Hill on the most up-to-date intelligence — we have no information at this point that suggests that this was a significantly preplanned attack, but this was the result of opportunism, taking advantage of and exploiting what was happening as a result of reaction to the video that was found to be offensive.”

— Carney, news briefing, Sept. 20

CBS News reports there never was anti-American protest.

“Witnesses tell CBS News that there was never an anti-American protest outside of the consulate. Instead they say it came under planned attack. That is in direct contradiction to the administration’s account.”

— Margaret Brennan CBS News correspondent, CBS News report aired Sept. 20



But Obama resists saying the ‘t’ word…


OBAMA: “What we’ve seen over the last week, week and a half, is something that actually we've seen in the past, where there is an offensive video or cartoon directed at the prophet Muhammad. And this is obviously something that then is used as an excuse by some to carry out inexcusable violent acts directed at Westerners or Americans.
“And my number-one priority is always to keep our diplomats safe and to keep our embassies safe. And so when the initial events happened in Cairo and all across the region, we worked with Secretary Clinton to redouble our security and to send a message to the leaders of these countries, essentially saying, although we had nothing to do with the video, we find it offensive, it's not representative of America's views, how we treat each other with respect when it comes to their religious beliefs, but we will not tolerate violence.”

QUESTION: “We have reports that the White House said today that the attacks in Libya were a terrorist attack. Do you have information indicating that it was Iran, or al-Qaeda was behind organizing the protests?”
OBAMA: “Well, we're still doing an investigation, and there are going to be different circumstances in different countries. And so I don’t want to speak to something until we have all the information. 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.”

— President Obama, Univision Town Hall, Sept. 20


“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.”

— Clinton, statement at a meeting with Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar, Sept. 21, 2012

“As we all know, the United States lost a great ambassador and the Libyan people lost a true friend when Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the terrorist assault on our consulate in Benghazi.”

— Clinton, meeting with Libyan President Magariaf , Sept. 24

QUESTION: “I heard Hillary Clinton say it was an act of terrorism. Is it? What do you say?”

OBAMA: “We are still doing an investigation. There is 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 are still gathering.”

— Obama, on ABC’s “The View,” Sept. 25

“That is what we saw play out in the last two weeks, as 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.”

— Obama, speech to the U.N. General Assembly, Sept. 25

“It was a preplanned act of terrorism directed against American citizens.”

— Magariaf, on NBC’s “Today” show, Sept. 26

“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 underway in North Africa, as we tragically saw in Benghazi.”

— Clinton, at the United Nations, Sept. 26

QUESTION: “Is there any reason why the President did not — he was asked point-blank in The View interview, is this a terrorist attack, yes or no? Is there any reason why he didn’t say yes?”

CARNEY: “He answered the question that he was asked, and there's no reason that he chose the words he did beyond trying to provide a full explanation of his views and his assessment that we need to await further information that the investigation will uncover. But it is certainly the case that it is our view as an administration, the President’s view, that it was a terrorist attack.”

— Carney, news briefing, Sept. 26

[mmcauliffe]

Good quick read from Charles Krauthhammer. It's not neary as long as Pat's average post...I promise. (Sorry Pat lol)

I think the man is bang on, as usual...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html

The "punch line" of the article, should you choose not to read it, is he's saying all Romney has to do is ask in the next debate, as a follow up question from the last debate, for a knock-out punch is the following:


Romney will be ready Monday.

You are offended by this accusation, Mr. President? The country is offended that your press secretary, your U.N. ambassador and you yourself have repeatedly misled the nation about the origin and nature of the Benghazi attack.

The problem wasn't the video, the problem was policies for which you say you now accept responsibility. Then accept it, Mr. President. You were asked in the last debate why more security was denied our people in Libya despite the fact that they begged for it. You never answered that question, Mr. President. Or will you blame your secretary of state?

[crashmister]

Just read this this morning Rob,

WASHINGTON — The CIA station chief in Libya reported to Washington within 24 hours of last month's deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate that there was evidence it was carried out by militants, not a spontaneous mob upset about an American-made video ridiculing Islam's Prophet Muhammad, U.S. officials have told The Associated Press.

It is unclear who, if anyone, saw the cable outside the CIA at that point and how high up in the agency the information went. The Obama administration maintained publicly for a week that the attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans was a result of the mobs that staged less-deadly protests across the Muslim world around the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks on the U.S.

Those statements have become highly charged political fodder as the presidential election approaches. A Republican-led House committee questioned State Department officials for hours about what GOP lawmakers said was lax security at the consulate, given the growth of extremist Islamic militants in North Africa.

And in their debate on Tuesday, President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney argued over when Obama first said it was a terror attack. In his Rose Garden address the morning after the killings, Obama said, "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for."

But Republicans say he was speaking generally and didn't specifically call the Benghazi attack a terror attack until weeks later, with the president and other key members of his administration referring at first to the anti-Muslim movie circulating on the Internet as a precipitating event.

Now congressional intelligence committees are demanding documents to show what the spy agencies knew and when, before, during and after the attacks.

The White House now says the attack probably was carried out by an al Qaida-linked group, with no public demonstration beforehand. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton blamed the "fog of war" for the early conflicting accounts.

The officials who told the AP about the CIA cable spoke anonymously because they were not authorized to release such information publicly.

Congressional aides say they expect to get the documents by the end of this week to build a timeline of what the intelligence community knew and compare that to what the White House was telling the public about the attack. That could give Romney ammunition to use in his foreign policy debate with Obama on Monday night.

The two U.S. officials said the CIA station chief in Libya compiled intelligence reports from eyewitnesses within 24 hours of the assault on the consulate that indicated militants launched the violence, using the pretext of demonstrations against U.S. facilities in Egypt against the film to cover their intent. The report from the station chief was written late Wednesday, Sept. 12, and reached intelligence agencies in Washington the next day, intelligence officials said.

Yet, on Saturday of that week, briefing points sent by the CIA to Congress said "demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault."

The briefing points, obtained by the AP, added: "There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations" but did not mention eyewitness accounts that blamed militants alone.

Such raw intelligence reports by the CIA on the ground would normally be sent first to analysts at the headquarters in Langley, Va., for vetting and comparing against other intelligence derived from eavesdropping drones and satellite images. Only then would such intelligence generally be shared with the White House and later, Congress, a process that can take hours, or days if the intelligence is coming only from one or two sources who may or may not be trusted.

U.S. intelligence officials say in this case the delay was due in part to the time it took to analyze various conflicting accounts. One official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to discuss the incident publicly, explained that "it was clear a group of people gathered that evening" in Benghazi, but that the early question was "whether extremists took over a crowd or they were the crowd."

But that explanation has been met with concern in Congress.

"The early sense from the intelligence community differs from what we are hearing now," Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said. "It ended up being pretty far afield, so we want to figure out why ... though we don't want to deter the intelligence community from sharing their best first impressions" after such events in the future.

"The intelligence briefings we got a week to 10 days after were consistent with what the administration was saying," said Rep. William Thornberry, R-Texas, a member of the House Intelligence and Armed Services committees. Thornberry would not confirm the existence of the early CIA report but voiced skepticism over how sure intelligence officials, including CIA Director David Petraeus, seemed of their original account when they briefed lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

"How could they be so certain immediately after such events, I just don't know," he said. "That raises suspicions that there was political motivation."

National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor declined comment. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence did not respond to requests for comment.

Two officials who witnessed Petraeus' closed-door testimony to lawmakers in the week after the attack said that during questioning he acknowledged that there were some intelligence analysts who disagreed with the conclusion that an unruly mob angry over the video had initiated the violence. But those officials said Petraeus did not mention the CIA's early eyewitness reports. He did warn legislators that the account could change as more intelligence was uncovered, they said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the hearing was closed.

Beyond the question of what was known immediately after the attack, it's also proving difficult to pinpoint those who set the fire that apparently killed Stevens and his communications aide or launched the mortars that killed two ex-Navy SEALs who were working as contract security guards at a fallback location. That delay is prompting lawmakers to question whether the intelligence community has the resources it needs to investigate this attack in particular or to wage the larger fight against al-Qaida in Libya or across Africa.

Intelligence officials say the leading suspected culprit is a local Benghazi militia, Ansar al-Shariah. The group denies responsibility for the attack but is known to have ties to a leading African terror group, al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb. Some of its leaders and fighters were spotted by Libyan locals at the consulate during the violence, and intelligence intercepts show the militants were in contact with AQIM militants before and after the attack, one U.S. intelligence official said.

But U.S. intelligence has not been able to match those reported sightings with the faces of attackers caught on security camera recordings during the attack since many U.S. intelligence agents were pulled out of Benghazi in the aftermath of the violence, the two U.S. intelligence officials said.

Nor have they found proof to back up their suspicion that the attack was preplanned, as indicated by the military-style tactics the attackers used, setting up a perimeter of roadblocks around the consulate and the backup compounds, then attacking the main entrance to distract, while sending a larger force to assault the rear.

Clear-cut answers may prove elusive because such an attack is not hard to bring about relatively swiftly with little preplanning or coordination in a post-revolutionary country awash with weapons, where the government is so new it still relies on armed militants to keep the peace. Plus, the location of U.S. diplomat enclaves is an open secret for the locals.

[CubanExpress]

Fox is a horrible source for news, but I'll agree with them that the majority of people could care less with what happens outside of the united states.

[crashmister]

Here's the thing Jetty, for a month now faux has been saying that Hillary, OB, Rice, and Lamb have been lying about what they knew and when. Now, we find that what they were saying was in fact consistent with with the intelegence reports.

"The early sense from the intelligence community differs from what we are hearing now," Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said. "It ended up being pretty far afield, so we want to figure out why ... though we don't want to deter the intelligence community from sharing their best first impressions" after such events in the future.

"The intelligence briefings we got a week to 10 days after were consistent with what the administration was saying," said Rep. William Thornberry, R-Texas, a member of the House Intelligence and Armed Services committees. Thornberry would not confirm the existence of the early CIA report but voiced skepticism over how sure intelligence officials, including CIA Director David Petraeus, seemed of their original account when they briefed lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

The "Additional security" They keep talking about has no # attached to it. How much additional security were Stevens and others asking for? No one seem's to be able to put a # on that. Did they ever actually get any additional security? Yes they did. Just not US personnel. 4 additional guards from the Febuary 17th brigade were sent to Benghazi. These guy's while well meaning were essentially unarmed bodies. The real issue or problem here is the Benghazi compound it self. Nothing actually say's it, but I keep getting the impression that the state department didn't feel as if the Benghazi compound was their problem. At least not entirely. Part of your post actually bears that out.

On February 11, 1:13 pm, Regional Security Officer of the Libyan Embassy Eric Nordstrom emails State Department officials, cc-ing then-Ambassador Gene Cretz, saying he’ll try to send personnel from the Security Support Team to Benghazi. “I’ll speak with our SST personnel to se if they can free up 1 or 2 bodies for Benghazi….While the status of Benghazi remains undefined, DS” – Diplomatic Security – “is hesitant to devout (sic) resources and as I indicated previously, this has severely hampered operations in Benghazi. That often means that DS agents are there guarding a compound with 2 other DOS personnel present. That often means that outreach and reporting is non-existent.”

Now if as many in the MMS now believe that this was a CIA "Spook factory" as the Washington post reported here,

Through their outbursts, cryptic language and boneheaded questioning of State Department officials, the committee members left little doubt that one of the two compounds at which the Americans were killed, described by the administration as a “consulate” and a nearby “annex,” was a CIA base. They did this, helpfully, in a televised public hearing.

Then the next question is How much responsibility actually fall's on the state department and how much is on the CIA? Bear in mind, there was no permanent state department presence's in that compound. Even with Stevens there, he and security detail were the only evacuees's that night.
Krauthhammer, not being privy to classified information or national security breefings, is not only wrong, but he's the proverbial "Man with a paper azz hole". Like most of faux's pundit's, he'll never let the fact's get in the way of a good story. See, I remember when this jerk weed agreed with the bush admin, that we didn't go into Iraq because of WMD's.
He's also one of the guy's who was parroting the mith, OB called Assad a "Reformer" which never happened. Members of congress on both sides were doing that. Can't tell you how many times he's mentioned OB's apology tour that never happened as well. Guy's a hater.
Jetty, you keep saying this was plain as day when the reality is it was anything but. That's becoming clearer every day. Everything they've found so far just raises more questions.
They knew they were attacked but no clue by whom. They knew the attackers were heavily armed, but so are all the militias in Libya. They knew there had been several attacks before this one, but all were linked to militias not terrorist's. The milita being blamed is denying any involvement. Al Qaeda never directly took credit for the attack. When was the last time Al Qaeda didn't joyfully take credit for having done something like this? How about never. All the eye whitness accounts are conflicting at this point. People who were said to have been there, can't be found on any of the video's. The list of questions seems endless, and complete answers, like "How much security was actually requested", and "who was actually responsible for security at the Benghazi location" is still unclear.
Like I've said a # of times,
First, secure the rest of the diplomatic corps.
Second, fully investigate and establish a factual account of what actually happened and when, including what information was given to everyone, especally the state department and the white house.
Then hold the hearing.
There's no question in my mind, mistakes were made. That is tragically obvious. But the focus right now should be to correct those mistakes so this don't happen again next week. The reason I say that is because very few people knew Stevens was even there. I've read less than a dozen people had that info. How they knew, and how to prevent that kind of leak in the near future, I believe should be the first thing they try to find out and correct. Instead, the resources are being used to hang this around OB's neck for purely political reasons. With close to 50 diplomatic missions vulnerable to the exact same attacks, I think that's disgraceful. JMHO

[crashmister]

It really don't Rob. But the question, did the administration deliberately mislead the publc as to this being a demonstration or a planed attack came up as romy decided to jump the gun and tap dance on the bodies of 4 americans for political gain.

Now that intelligence reports are consistent with the administrations "best information they had at the time" statment's, it's become about the admin's lax security.

It's, from my point of view, a political witch hunt. They're grasping at straws trying to find a smoking gun to blame OB. In the absence of that, they just make a bunch of unfounded accusations and hope enough stick.

I watched the Issa/Chaffetz hearing where the one person who could have shed some light about how and why security decisions were made, Lamb, had her testimony cut short 2/3rds of the way through her opening statment because a google photo she was using suddenly became classified, as did the rest of her testimony.

Nordstrom testified that "another foot of wall or half dozen guards would not have made a difference in an attack of this magnatude". This, from the very guy who was asking for more security.

Even the information that has come to light is being ignored. The congressional security committee get's the same intelligence briefing the white house does. Chaffetz chairs this committee. He knows the report sent by CIA Bureau chief Libya, was not included in any of the intelligence point brief's.

Jetty's perception is not without merit based on what the pundit's are saying. According to them, OB not declaring this a "terrorist attack" or using that exact phrase, somehow showed he was sympathetic to terrorists. I say tell that to binladen and the rest who have been killed in drone strikes, special ops missions and military ops over the last 4 years. Or those who've been captured.

The sole purpose of this circus is to keep OB out of the white house for another 4 years. If they were really looking to get to the bottom of this, the investigation would be completed before any committee was conviened, and exactly who attacked would be determined. As of now, they don't know for sure.

Bear in mind, this is the same group that said OB cooked the books for the October labor department report. A feat even Nixon couldn't pull off. Desprate people do desprate thing's.

[crashmister]

Jetty you can speculate about this all you want, the CIA reports support what the admin said and when they said it. They also made it very clear that as more is learned that could change.

And yeah, Lamb did have real time video of the attack from closed circut cameras inside the compound. But only after the attack started and the system was activated. None of the cameras in queston view the exterior of the compound.

I have a question, if the pugs are being so open and public with this whole hearing process, maybe you can explain this,

Benghazi.

On Tuesday Oct.10, an internal staff memo from congressional Democrats accused Rep. Darrell Issa, the Oversight Committee chairman, of stonewalling House Democrats from the investigation into the attacks. House Democrats also complained of being excluded from an Oct. 5 congressional delegation visit to Libya after Republicans allegedly concealed the trip until less than 24 hours before it was scheduled to leave. “It’s a shame they’re resorting to such petty abuses,” says the committee’s ranking member, Rep. Elijah Cummings. (Republicans countered that they found out about the trip just when Democrats did.) Democrats also complained of being left out of a classified briefing about the investigation organized by Speaker John Boehner. Hold on, because that political acrimony to likely to increase — especially if administration officials continue to contradict one another about what went on in Benghazi.

I'm sure there's a good reason to leave the dem's ON THE COMMITTEE out of the investigative process, Not enough room in first class for everybody? Couldn't afford it with the baggage charge? United called last minute with a fare deal? We lost your #? You know, some ligitimate reason like that. I forgot, they gave a ligiimate reason, We didn't know! Who's BS ing now? Just like the cllasified briefing Boehner held on the investigation. I'm certain that was about integrity, and not 50 way's to make OB look bad. That my friend is what this is all about. And if the tables were turned, Dem's would most likely be doing the exact same thing. We as voters need to be smarter than that. From my point of view, OB could call em "Killer clowns from outer space" just as long as he keeps killing them like he has been.

I'll say this, if OB win's I would not want to be one of the guy's involved in this attack. They found binladen, what chance do you think these azzholes have?

[jbuck501]

From my point of view, OB could call em "Killer clowns from outer space" just as long as he keeps killing them like he has been.

You truly have a way with words.

LOL>LOL>. True and no shortage of them either. LOL>LOL. Keep it Pat, you save me a lot of time researching!!

[crashmister]

Jetty, By the time the drone got on station they were already back at the Annex with Smith's body. In fact the decision to evacuate the annex was made about the same time the drone got there. It took several hours to "secure" the annex for evacuation. Meaning destroy all the evidence the CIA had been there. During that time, the annex was taking intermittent RPG and mortar fire. A mortar round hit the roof and killed the other 2 agent's and wonded a 3rd. But, It was not a sustained attack. The only part it got right was how they found Stevens body. FA 18 is a great plane, but you don't send it anywhere without refuel tankers. A drone (Which was there ) is much better suited to spot targets. The annex location in a civilian residential location pretty muck nixed the FA 18's ability to do anything more than fly around making noise. Attack choppers would have helped, but none were in range of the annex location. Point here is, every country with an embassy abroad rely's on it's host country to protect it. Libya does not have a military to do so right now. Considering our role in liberating Libya, the country was considered for all intents and purposses an ally. Maybe wrongfully so, but no one expected or anticipated anything like what happened.
And the Bush admin. quit the search for binladen in 06 as it took to many resources. That's documented. The pug's are starting to back off the benghazi story because so much of what's been made public now is starting to make them look bad.
Issa and Chaffetz are under fire from State, FBI, CIA, and members of their own party for posting sensitive information on their web site about Libyan assets working with the US government. Then tried to blame the state department for information they didn't provide to cover their incompetence.
Their problem, every document the Issa/Chaffetz committee now has, supports the statments made by the state department and the white house. I'm reading now that Issa is under pressure from his own party and the romy camp to adjourn the committee until the investigation is completed.
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts ... ith_the_us

And then there's this,

CIA documents supported Susan Rice’s description of Benghazi attacks -- (David Ignatius, Washington Post, Oct. 19):

“Talking points” prepared by the CIA on Sept. 15, the same day that Rice taped three television appearances, support her description of the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate as a reaction to Arab anger about an anti-Muslim video prepared in the United States.

According to the CIA account, “The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.”...

The senior intelligence official said the analysts’ judgment was based in part on monitoring of some of the Benghazi attackers, which showed they had been watching the Cairo protests live on television and talking about them before they assaulted the consulate....

The political debate has focused on whether the attack was spontaneous or planned, but the official said there’s evidence of both, and that different attackers may have had different motives....

“It was a flash mob with weapons,” is how the senior official described the attackers....

The official said the only major change he would make now in the CIA’s Sept. 15 talking points would be to drop the word “spontaneous” and substitute “opportunistic"...
A memo prepared by the National Counterterrorism Center on Sept. 14 illustrates the fragmentary nature of the evidence: “As time progresses, we are learning more, but we still don’t have a complete picture of what happened"...The Sept. 15 talking points that were the basis for Rice’s televised comments were requested by the House intelligence committee.
And

No evidence found of Al Qaeda role in Libya attack U.S. intelligence agencies and witnesses paint a picture of an assault carried out with little planning at the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi. (LA Times, Oct. 19)


The attack was "carried out following a minimum amount of planning," said a U.S. intelligence official, who, like others, spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss a matter still under investigation. "The attackers exhibited a high degree of disorganization. Some joined the attack in progress, some did not have weapons and others just seemed interested in looting."...
Most of the evidence so far suggests that "the attackers launched their assault opportunistically after they learned about the violence at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo" earlier that day, the official said....in Benghazi, witnesses said members of the group that raided the U.S. mission specifically mentioned the video, which denigrated the prophet Muhammad.

Now, considering Chaffetz and at least the entire congressional security committee got this same briefing at the same time OB, Clinton, Rice, and Lamb did, Who's the lying manipulating azz clowns now? These fug stick's accused the admin and state dpartment of lying about it when he knew full well they were stating exactly what that report said. I've found allot of right wing lies over the last 4 years but this one takes the cake as most dispicable. It's crystal clear to me who was politicizing the death's of 4 Americans for political gain.

[CubanExpress]

Anybody hungry for some copy pasta?

Oct 10, 2012 at 12:20 pm

GOP Rep: I ‘Absolutely’ Voted To Cut Funding For Embassy Security

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) said today that he voted to cut funding for U.S. embassy security amid political attacks from Republicans that the Obama administration did not do enough to secure the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya that was attacked last month.

Republicans and their allies have been trying to politicize the attack — which killed four Americans, including the U.S. Ambassador to Libya — suggesting, without evidence, the Obama administration may have ignored intelligence that the attack was imminent, didn’t properly secure the Benghazi compound and is now trying to cover it up.

But hidden beneath the GOP campaign is the fact that House Republicans voted to cut nearly $300 million from the U.S. embassy security budget. When asked if he voted to cut the funds this morning on CNN, Chaffetz said, “Absolutely“:

O’BRIEN: Is it true that you voted to cut the funding for embassy security?

CHAFFETZ: Absolutely. Look, we have to make priorities and choices in this country. We have — think about this — 15,000 contractors in Iraq.

And we’re talking about can we get two dozen or so people into Libya to help protect our forces? When you’re in tough economic times, you have to make difficult choices how to prioritize this.

The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank breaks it all down:

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program — well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration’s request.) Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected.

[GOP vice presidential nominee Paul] Ryan, [Rep. Darrell] Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions. Under Ryan’s budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.

“It’s also important to note,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said last week, “that the Republican appropriation in Congress gave the administration $300 million less than it asked for for the State Department, including funding for security.”

[mmcauliffe]

All I have to add is...OOooopps, those pesky Emails

[CubanExpress]

All I have to add is...OOooopps, those pesky Emails

Denny good stuff.

LOL

[CubanExpress]

I already posted how those cuts came along so go back and read it

At best they can say it was almost a 12 hour battle at the Consulate... 12hr is a hell
of a long time and from the emails/text/phone calls they knew they were being
attack..

Now lets read that part together... They were being ATTACK!!! do you actually believe
that nobody in the WH knew this?? they know what Mitt say every moment, but fail
to find out about an attack going on...

The Military leaders would've had to called the higher up and then pass it to the
Commander in Chief... Chain of command is how it alway been run...

So that BS about the CIA passing along Info that was wrong doesnt fly with 99% of
the Military.... Also the Marines that were on the ground I believe Two of them really
arent there to be bodyguards... (again this depends on the size of the unit)

The Primary Mission of the Marine Security Guard (MSG) is to provide internal security at
sesignated U.S. diplomatic and consular faclities in order to "Prevent the compromise
of Classified material vital to the national security of the United States.

FAST teams (50 Marines) were send in "After" the attack... which to some in the Military
is taking a dump and not wiping afterward... Why did they wait so long when they
knew for 12hr of an attack...

Most might be saying well who guards these places most have Private Security Contractors
these are mostly ex special Ops personal... and the ex navy seals that were killed
there, were there to look for weapons not to protect.. H.Clinton cut the Blackwater
ops out... (thats another thread)

I will go back to "Common Sense"... When turmoil does take place we take steps to fority
and add more personal as deemed necessary especially when it was requested.
As far as the Drones go ... sorry but they were already in place and that will also come
out....Here one for you> Sir the drones are there and there are 100s of people on the
ground do we engage??? again to them its a crowd outside an consulate... but we are
being Attack and the livefeed is showing it...

Lets go back to the chain of command... Nobody can make that call remember this is
libya and we are trying to play nice with them...
So for some reason the call isnt given our people fall and the bs start flowing out..
plus add to the fact that someone has to take blame...
So the CIA gets thrown under the bus... do you actually believe they are going to turn on
the Obama Machine


But all this is BS... again lets go back to "Common Sense" if you put personal in harm
way then its your duty to protect them... If those people in Harm Way ask repeatly for
more help...and if the Military personal that were pull out, said it was a mistake and
even said something would happen...

Why would the Obama Machine not get involved?? Why would H. Clintion overlook it..
why in the @#$ when it did happen they call it a Protest gone wrong over a movie..
when two month prior they were bombed ... also ask yourselves do you really
believe that a video that came out Months earlier all of a sudden created a protest on
9/11.... i mean all those are "Common Sense" question...

I understand most have a hate for the right and want to see the Obama machine
go forward... but why when something so simple is explained by everybody you still
find a way to deny it or spin it ???

Fl is a toss up state right now so you guys on the left must be sweating
In my area i only counted two Obama sign and one said "FIRED OBAMA".....

[crashmister]

Well all I'm seeing at this point is, Issa, Chaffetz and the rest are raising questions they already have answers to in an effort to discredit the admin when they are the ones lying about what they actually knew. Issa and Chaffetz's "committee" is only interested in one thing, making OB and Clinton look bad. I attached a memo from congresman Cummings office to the Democratic members of the oversight committee outlining the misconduct of Issa and Chaffetz as well as the dileberate & illegal exclusion of Democratic committee members in not only briefings but access to both whitnesses and documents pertaining to the investigation and situation in Libya before and after the attack, as well as their witholding of critical information provided to the committee. So my question now is what are pug's on the committee keeping from us?
It don't take a genius to figure out what's going on here. romy is tied nationally but behind in critical battleground states like Ohio. CNN as of an hour ago has OB a 68% favorite to win. Add that Colin Powell just endorsed OB, and the pugs are desprate for an October surprise. They don't have one so they are trying to make one. I had a ton of reading to confirm all the source reference to this memo, but every word is true and correct. It's 17 pages so some of you might not want to read the whole thing, but it's long due to the source data list's. It's reads pretty quick.