Clearly Hillary Got to Them...

[ONW]

Since the calendar is proving a challenge, perhaps you can clarify the following vexing mysteries:

1) When the British were attacked on June 11 and pulled out June 17, was that in response to a protest over a video that would not occur almost three more months?

2) When the Red Cross pulled out after it was attacked a second time, was that in response to a protest over a video that hadn't happened yet?

3) When, upon noticing that both the British and Red Cross had in fact pulled out of Benghazi, the head of military security remarked "...it was apparent to me that we were the last flag flying in Benghazi; we were the last thing on their target list to remove," was the Administration not paying attention to their experts on the ground? Why didn't the Secretary of State know what the Brits, Red Cross and Americans on the ground knew?

4) Was she not listening when AMBASSADOR CHRIS STEVENS (!) cabled both in June and August that the security situation was deteriorating (e.g., using the words "security vacuum", to describe the city)? Could he possibly have been referring to the attack that didn't begin in another city for another month?

Having then seen direct attacks on the facility earlier that year, seen their allies and prominent NGO pull out because of the manifest deterioration in security and having IN HAND security cables FROM THE SLAIN AMBASSADOR, do you believe Susan Rice when she said "...our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated."?

I agree with you that it was "politically useful", but when the Libyans(!) counterparts described her assessment as "unfounded and preposterous", do you really (really?) think it was their "best" assessment (when "best" is taken to mean "most accurate"; as opposed to "best...politically")?

If that's her "best", I'd hate to see her worst. With apologies to the Aceman, "Susan, don't do your best. Your best isn't very good. Do my best."

And if we had left, you'd be calling the government "surrender monkeys" who emboldened the enemy by displaying weakness....blah, blah, blah.

 

[jhmd2000]

And if we had left, you'd be calling the government "surrender monkeys" who emboldened the enemy by displaying weakness....blah, blah, blah.

I've presented facts and reason, and you respond with this tripe. Perhaps my expectations for this Administration and its defenders were too high.

 

[ArlingtonDeac]

I think the whole point is that he shouldn't have been, but the leadership was trying to put down a light footprint and a show of diplomacy to try to gain and build trust.

It was a calculated risk that...didn't work.

Incorrect facts. The reason he was there, and the reason that security was light, are both in the after-action report which you never read. The Ambassador should not have elected to stay across town at the special mission compound, and "leadership" was surprised that he did. Security was "light" at said compound because prior congressional budget cuts had gutted the funding available for the diplomatic security in high-risk countries such as Libya, against the strong protest of the State Department, and they simply didn't have the means to effectively secure two different facilities in the same city. You had a bad late decision by the Ambassador to stay at the SMC, compounded by bad intelligence provided that morning to the Ambassador, leading him to believe he was not at risk, and poor security arrangements at an adduct facility, resulting in a tragedy. A mob -- and that's what it was, organized or not; they were regular citizens and weren't using weapons -- stormed the gates and set fire to a few buildings, ran out of gasoline (which they found on location), and left with having attacked a single person directly. Tragically, however, the Ambassador and another man had been killed by smoke inhalation, which had somehow seeped into and filled the secure area they were buttoned-up inside. Not a single member of the mob knew that anyone had been killed. They never saw the Ambassador, didn't know where he was, and left after about fifteen minutes. Then security forces arrived from across town and loaded everyone up and took them to the main facility (the smoke issue prevented retrieval of the bodies). That's what happened. Hours later, we suffered additional casualties from a long distance mortar attack (with some light small arms fire, from a distance), which struck the roof of the main facility and killed two more security personnel on guard there. Then everyone was evacuated to the capital.

Why we still there? Because our intelligence apparatus is terrible, and we misread the situation. If you want me to cast more aspirations on our military and intelligence capability to accurate take the temperature of a hostile situation abroad, I have no issue with that. We've always been terrible at it, and continue to be terrible at it. They let us down by feeding the Ambassador bad intelligence, which he used to make a poor choice. But there's no boogeyman here. Pretty much every part of the government combined to create a dangerous situation, then bad luck turned it into a tragedy. Then political hacks turned it into what you're pushing on this thread.

And if you're hanging your hat on me saying "months" when I more accurately should have said "several weeks (7-8)" than you've dropped down a peg in the debate department. It's a meaningless distinction in regards to the point: this "conspiracy" corrected its incorrect assessment well before the election, with plenty of time for the public to digest it (and plenty of time for the hacks to try desperately to convert it into scandal). Thankfully, reasonable minds prevailed. The public is smarter than the Pubs gave them credit for on this issue. Tragedy isn't a blame game, unless you're desperate.

 

[ConnorEl]

Questions about ‘60 Minutes’ Benghazi story go beyond Dylan Davies interview; CBS conducting ‘journalistic review’


Uh Huh.

As always suspected, the story is complex and not YET clear.

Quote:
----------
...But Logan’s mea culpa said nothing about other weaknesses in the report that a line-by-line review of the broadcast’s transcript reveals. McClatchy turned to LexisNexis, a legal research service, for a transcript of the broadcast because the segment no longer appeared on CBS sites.

The report repeatedly referred to al Qaida as solely responsible for the attack on the compound and made no mention of Ansar al Shariah, the Islamic extremist group that controls and provides much of the security in restive Benghazi and that has long been suspected in the attack. While the two organizations have worked together in Libya, experts said they have different aims – al Qaida has global objectives while Ansar al Shariah is focused on turning Libya into an Islamic state.

It is an important distinction, experts on those groups said. Additionally, al Qaida’s role, if any, in the attack has not been determined, and Logan’s narration offered no source for her repeated assertion that it had been.

“I think there are definitely connections, but I am not sure there is command and control” between al Qaida and Ansar al Shariah, said Aaron Y. Zelin of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, who studies insurgent activity in North Africa.

Logan claimed that “it’s now well established that the Americans were attacked by al Qaida in a well-planned assault.” But al Qaida has never claimed responsibility for the attack, and the FBI, which is leading the U.S. investigation, has never named al Qaida as the sole perpetrator. Rather, it is believed a number of groups were part of the assault, including members and supporters of al Qaida and Ansar al Shariah, as well as attackers angered by a video made by an American that insulted Prophet Muhammad. The video spurred angry protests outside the U.S. embassy in Cairo hours beforehand.

In a Sept. 12, 2012, statement about the attack, Ansar al Shariah suggested its members had participated, though the group said it did not order the assault.

Moreover, questions remain over how far in advance the attack on the U.S. compound had been planned. Rather than a long-planned attack, investigators have told McClatchy it was likely planned hours, rather than days, in advance...
----------

 

[jhmd2000]

Incorrect facts. The reason he was there, and the reason that security was light, are both in the after-action report which you never read. The Ambassador should not have elected to stay across town at the special mission compound, and "leadership" was surprised that he did. Security was "light" at said compound because prior congressional budget cuts had gutted the funding available for the diplomatic security in high-risk countries such as Libya, against the strong protest of the State Department, and they simply didn't have the means to effectively secure two different facilities in the same city. You had a bad late decision by the Ambassador to stay at the SMC, compounded by bad intelligence provided that morning to the Ambassador, leading him to believe he was not at risk, and poor security arrangements at an adduct facility, resulting in a tragedy. A mob -- and that's what it was, organized or not; they were regular citizens and weren't using weapons -- stormed the gates and set fire to a few buildings, ran out of gasoline (which they found on location), and left with having attacked a single person directly. Tragically, however, the Ambassador and another man had been killed by smoke inhalation, which had somehow seeped into and filled the secure area they were buttoned-up inside. Not a single member of the mob knew that anyone had been killed. They never saw the Ambassador, didn't know where he was, and left after about fifteen minutes. Then security forces arrived from across town and loaded everyone up and took them to the main facility (the smoke issue prevented retrieval of the bodies). That's what happened. Hours later, we suffered additional casualties from a long distance mortar attack (with some light small arms fire, from a distance), which struck the roof of the main facility and killed two more security personnel on guard there. Then everyone was evacuated to the capital.

Why we still there? Because our intelligence apparatus is terrible, and we misread the situation. If you want me to cast more aspirations on our military and intelligence capability to accurate take the temperature of a hostile situation abroad, I have no issue with that. We've always been terrible at it, and continue to be terrible at it. They let us down by feeding the Ambassador bad intelligence, which he used to make a poor choice. But there's no boogeyman here. Pretty much every part of the government combined to create a dangerous situation, then bad luck turned it into a tragedy. Then political hacks turned it into what you're pushing on this thread.

And if you're hanging your hat on me saying "months" when I more accurately should have said "several weeks (7-8)" than you've dropped down a peg in the debate department. It's a meaningless distinction in regards to the point: this "conspiracy" corrected its incorrect assessment well before the election, with plenty of time for the public to digest it (and plenty of time for the hacks to try desperately to convert it into scandal). Thankfully, reasonable minds prevailed. The public is smarter than the Pubs gave them credit for on this issue. Tragedy isn't a blame game, unless you're desperate.

Blaming a dead guy is one thing, but obfuscating the fact that HE (not anyone else, HIM PERSONALLY) expressed security concerns THAT DAY (note: BEFORE any phantom protest) citing in his weekly report, a "growing frustration with police and security forces who were too weak to keep the country secure." is simply not honest. Your theory is that he was talking out of both sides of his mouth? Does a guy who feels security is "too weak to keep the country secure" (HIS words, , transmitted to his chain of command DAY OF the attack*) then reverse course in the same 24 hour period to convince himself (against his own contemporaneous, documented opinions) that he was now suddenly not at risk? Smell test: fail.

* "best assessment...info on hand" LOLZ.

 

[ArlingtonDeac]

"Blaming a dead guy?" I'm about to stop expecting better from you. This seems to be your thing now.

Everyone in the state department had security concerns regarding Libya. Monthly. Weekly. Daily. This is not news. Those on the ground rarely spoke of anything else, and likely mentioned it in every cable, though they went about their jobs like professionals anyway. But the money wasn't there to beef up security at ancillary facilities like the SMC. Remember all that budgetary belt-tightening you were gaga over in 2010? Well, those cuts came from somewhere, from places liked diplomatic core security. I'll break it down simply: intelligence sources informed the Ambassador that there was no reason to believe he was situationally in danger at the time of the attacks, but that the SMC was not secure enough to house him generally, and that he should remain in the main facility at night. He elected to use it anyway in order to facilitate a meeting with a local leader on that side of town, which was risky overall, but not situationally risky, according to intelligence. So he exposed himself to more danger than was advised, but believed, based on bad intel, that it was acceptable under the prevailing tenor of the city. This is not unreasonable behavior for someone working in a dangerous area. He made this decision hours before going. Unfortunately, he was wrong, but the sad irony is, he wasn't all that wrong. If the damn safe area of the SMC had been equipped with smoke-removing fans, he and the other person who died there never would've been in danger that day. He would have waited out the mob in the safe area, which the mob never tried to breach, then hopped into the retrieval truck and returned to the main facility with everyone else. It was damn bad luck -- a fluke tragedy that anyone died at the SMC at all -- despite whatever you need to believe.

These are facts you yourself could know if you read the commission's report -- the fundamental primary document on the situation -- but you clearly would prefer not to know things that contradict your argument.

 

[jhmd2000]

"Blaming a dead guy?" I'm about to stop expecting better from you. This seems to be your thing now.

Everyone in the state department had security concerns regarding Libya. Monthly. Weekly. Daily. This is not news. Those on the ground rarely spoke of anything else, and likely mentioned it in every cable, though they went about their jobs like professionals anyway. But the money wasn't there to beef up security at ancillary facilities like the SMC. Remember all that budgetary belt-tightening you were gaga over in 2010? Well, those cuts came from somewhere, from places liked diplomatic core security. I'll break it down simply: intelligence sources informed the Ambassador that there was no reason to believe he was situationally in danger at the time of the attacks, but that the SMC was not secure enough to house him generally, and that he should remain in the main facility at night. He elected to use it anyway in order to facilitate a meeting with a local leader on that side of town, which was risky overall, but not situationally risky, according to intelligence. So he exposed himself to more danger than was advised, but believed, based on bad intel, that it was acceptable under the prevailing tenor of the city. This is not unreasonable behavior for someone working in a dangerous area. He made this decision hours before going. Unfortunately, he was wrong, but the sad irony is, he wasn't all that wrong. If the damn safe area of the SMC had been equipped with smoke-removing fans, he and the other person who died there never would've been in danger that day. He would have waited out the mob in the safe area, which the mob never tried to breach, then hopped into the retrieval truck and returned to the main facility with everyone else. It was damn bad luck -- a fluke tragedy that anyone died at the SMC at all -- despite whatever you need to believe.

These are facts you yourself could know if you read the commission's report -- the fundamental primary document on the situation -- but you clearly would prefer not to know things that contradict your argument.

Oh no they must certainly didn't. The "best assessment" (didn't you hear?) was that the demonstration was a spontaneous demonstration, not the final, foreseeable result of the security breakdown that everyone (else) saw coming. The "best" "information" available led them to this conclusion (the way the talking points ended up), and not the security concerns that everyone (else) saw coming (and were reflected in the original talking points before "....building leadership..." had a chance to weigh in). Funny how "building leadership" couldn't make it all the way to the set of Meet the Press to stand behind her concerns on the record.

"best assessment....information available..." El-Oh-El.

How does your "good faith, reasonable mistake!!!!111" defense account for the winnowing away of the intel on terror groups during the devolution of the talking points? I mean...how? This apologia is turning into Two Arlingtons, One Cup.

 

[ArlingtonDeac]

I think I'm done responding to you on threads. Cheers.

ETA: for those interested in actual facts, here is a complete explanation of the conditions in Benghazi before, during, and immediately after the September 11-12, 2012 attacks, prepared by the ARB: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf

Here's who prepared the report: Ambassador Thomas R. Pickering served as Chairman, with Admiral Michael Mullen as Vice Chairman. Additional members were Catherine Bertini, Richard Shinnick, and Hugh Turner, who represented the intelligence community.

 

[jhmd2000]

I think I'm done responding to you on threads. Cheers.

ETA: for those interested in actual facts, here is a complete explanation of the conditions in Benghazi before, during, and immediately after the September 11-12, 2012 attacks, prepared by the ARB: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf

Here's who prepared the report: Ambassador Thomas R. Pickering served as Chairman, with Admiral Michael Mullen as Vice Chairman. Additional members were Catherine Bertini, Richard Shinnick, and Hugh Turner, who represented the intelligence community.

Be it known then that you walked away without answering the challenge of why the Administration felt the need to push hard with an incomplete story. Very hard and very incomplete. You never answered my question about why they couldn't just let the facts come in and reserve comment. Instead, we watched the talking points just devolve away from the facts (ultimately proven to have been true the entire time) and towards the "unfounded and preposterous" cover story. You can literally watch them cull and water down the facts towards what you concede was the more "politically useful" answer...yet you ate up the evolving explanations on face value. Of course you did.

P.S. This WAS the Committee appointed (80%) by the Secretary of State (that you, again incorrectly at Post #26 (if you're scoring at home), tried to distinguish from another). It says so RIGHT HERE on PAGE ONE in your link: "Four Board members were selected by the Secretary of State and one member from the intelligence community (IC) was selected by the Director for National Intelligence." When you can hand-pick the supermajority of the board, you'll have a tough time going wrong, amirite?

 

[ArlingtonDeac]

Well you clearly didn't make it beyond page one. It's funny that you think the report absolves the State Department. And attacking the integrity of those committee members based on nothing but political hate, without having even read their work, is intellectually useless. Most of what you just asked me is included in their work, and I won't summarize it again, or repeat myself (this is the third major Benghazi thread this board has hosted, for pete's sake). But mainly, you've become really unpleasant to talk to. So, yeah, I'll walk away from your "challenges." Read into that whatever you like. Cheers.

 

[jhmd2000]

Well you clearly didn't make it beyond page one. It's funny that you think the report absolves the State Department. And attacking the integrity of those committee members based on nothing but political hate, without having even read their work, is intellectually useless. Most of what you just asked me is included in their work, and I won't summarize it again, or repeat myself (this is the third major Benghazi thread this board has hosted, for pete's sake). But mainly, you've become really unpleasant to talk to. So, yeah, I'll walk away from your "challenges." Read into that whatever you like. Cheers.

What happened on the night of the attack does not compel the misinformation campaign. That's the part you're avoiding. The red car either ran the red light or had the right of way under the green. That much will come out in due time. What has always troubled me is why the Administration felt compelled to spin it, because the people that died deserve better. We don't have to speculate about what happened when the political actors got involved. Why rush out the UN Ambassador to discuss diplomatic security at a particular consulate, if not for plausible deniability? Actually, nevermind. We don't have to speculate. WE CAN READ THEIR EMAILS, specifically Neuland's email which states her "building leadership" didn't like the way the (truthful, ultimately proven) talking points sounded, and then you can literally watch them change into the fairy tale. Who could she be referring to, when she says "building leadership"? Why didn't "building leadership" step up and take responsibility for telling this "sourced" message, if she really believed it? She tried to call in sick for her initial testimony (another coincidence?) and then David Petraeus gets conveniently nuked on the eve of his testimony. All of this is a coincidence? There were plenty of red flags before we saw the emails and watched the truth get watered down. How anyone of intellect could defend it after we see the email is nothing short of weird.

 

[ONW]

Read the after action congressional report and refute specific things or stfu already. Your definition of "facts" and "reason" is nothing short of weird.

 

[jhmd2000]

Read the after action congressional report and refute specific things or stfu already. Your definition of "facts" and "reason" is nothing short of weird.

The report contains pages of evidence that would rebut a good faith impression that this was an out of control protest that no one could have seen coming. I direct your attention to page 15 et seq. You might find the phrases "security vacuum" (note: they failed to attribute that characterization to its initial and recently deceased author) and "overall deterioration of the security environment" instructive. Read the timeline of attacks in 2012 alone (pages 15-16) and tell me again where the Candyland notion of an unforeseeable protest came from again? 20 different itemized attacks in the months leading up to the final assault say hello.

They got caught lying. Period. Everybody else saw this coming, and we watched them vote with their feet. This Administration didn't heed the warning that everyone else did, but that couldn't be the headline, so....

 

[ONW]

A "Security vacuum" could result in mob violence, a terrorist attack, or both right.

 

[jhmd2000]

A "Security vacuum" could result in mob violence, a terrorist attack, or both right.

Especially when you ignored repeated warnings for more security.

 

[ONW]

Not disagreeing with that, but lack of security doesn't inherently equal terrorism.

 

[jhmd2000]

Not disagreeing with that, but lack of security doesn't inherently equal terrorism.

I agree with the report that the people responsible for the attack were the terrorists. That's always true, whether the threat was in a Presidential Daily Briefing or preceded by 20 attacks on Western interests in five months (no expert in math; but that's close enough to weekly for me), but my problem is the needful rush to manage the fallout. Everything about their actions after the fact reeked. Why is the Ambassador to the United Nations the face of the intel briefing? Does that make any sense? Why not have intel people brief the intel? Does the CIA negotiate the next treaty? There's a reason that they put the intel people on the bench, and it's not b/c they couldn't afford the per diem for DP to drive across the street to Meet the Press studios.

 

[ConnorEl]

Republicans....???

 

[WFFaithful]

I agree with the report that the people responsible for the attack were the terrorists. That's always true, whether the threat was in a Presidential Daily Briefing or preceded by 20 attacks on Western interests in five months (no expert in math; but that's close enough to weekly for me), but my problem is the needful rush to manage the fallout. Everything about their actions after the fact reeked. Why is the Ambassador to the United Nations the face of the intel briefing? Does that make any sense? Why not have intel people brief the intel? Does the CIA negotiate the next treaty? There's a reason that they put the intel people on the bench, and it's not b/c they couldn't afford the per diem for DP to drive across the street to Meet the Press studios.

 

[WFFaithful]

The report contains pages of evidence that would rebut a good faith impression that this was an out of control protest that no one could have seen coming. I direct your attention to page 15 et seq. You might find the phrases "security vacuum" (note: they failed to attribute that characterization to its initial and recently deceased author) and "overall deterioration of the security environment" instructive. Read the timeline of attacks in 2012 alone (pages 15-16) and tell me again where the Candyland notion of an unforeseeable protest came from again? 20 different itemized attacks in the months leading up to the final assault say hello.

They got caught lying. Period. Everybody else saw this coming, and we watched them vote with their feet. This Administration didn't heed the warning that everyone else did, but that couldn't be the headline, so....