US Officials Knew Libya attack was work of Al Qaeda 24 hrs..

Post Reply New Topic

Regardless it is the first time we have had an ambassador murdered in over 30 years. The last administration where this happened was under Jimmy Carter, in 1979.


Just about every other media outlet is trying to sweep this under the rug in order to protect Obama:

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.

According to a review of the cable addressed to the Office of the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Emergency Action Committee was also briefed "on the location of approximately ten Islamist militias and AQ training camps within Benghazi … these groups ran the spectrum from Islamist militias, such as the QRF Brigade and Ansar al-Sharia, to ‘Takfirist thugs.’” Each U.S. mission has a so-called Emergency Action Committee that is responsible for security measures and emergency planning.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10 ... z2B0ErHnc3

And with that simple word "regardless", you sweep my correction to the mistaken view of an embassy under another wall of Obama-bashing.

Oh BTW, Alcan called - they'd like some of their tinfoil back.

Actually, I'm just steamrolling your Bill Clinton routine of it depends on what your definition of "is" is.

The status of the consulate as far as who the land belongs to is immaterial and isn't all relevent and you know it.

Now here is some more information that actually is relevant:
Nordstrom said the incidents demonstrated that security in Libya was fragile and could degrade quickly. He added that Libya was "certainly not an environment where (the diplomatic) post would be directed to 'normalize' operations and reduce security resources in accordance with an artificial time table."

Nordstrom also said that diplomats in Libya were told not to request an extension of a 16-member special operations military team that left in August, according to an official of the Oversight panel. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.

Read more: US official in Libya said he wanted more security - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/war/ci_217329 ... z2B0tvugLg
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse

Not only were the requests for more security denied, they were told not to make any more requests.

The post was undefendable. No security measures could work.

In that case trying to beef up security is asking for it.

The first rule in winning, do not lose.

Out numbered, outgunned, and in indian country.

Historic, The Alamo, Little Big Horn.

What force they had could not stop the actions of the various parties, they were not the American Police, it was a domestic situation, and it had to be settled between Libyans. All of the local parties, were none of our business, our role is support the national government in developing a democratic state, from Tripoli.

They were told it was undefendable, security was removed, so we did not get into a shooting war with a hundred dead, further funding was refused, and they were told to back off.

The attack came at ten at night, with four people at the mission. The outer wall was a quarter mile. Twenty four other were at the safe house, with transport to the airport, and a plane on call.

There was no reason for anyone to be there. The reports cited, redskins on every hilltop, is reason to let the building go, leave a note on the door saying we went to a Birthday Party in Tripoli, and turn it over to the group that had been defending it for Libya.

Then it would have been an attack on the national government, who could bring in 500 fighters. No one would have attacked. We would have shown support for the people and government of Libya.

We have removed security, cut off your funding, arranged for a plane to take you out of there. These are not hints, suggestions, you do not run our policy toward Libya, there is a real Ambassador in Tripoli who is acting in accord with local wishes.

The locals were ready, did drive out the foreign fighters, did take control of Benghazi, did establish the national government as the unity of the people.

Of the four, three did make the over a mile back to the safehouse, with one of them dead. They were allowed to leave. Making a last stand in the safe room was a bad choice. Being there at ten at night with four people was a bad choice.

Pull back, stay together, never split your forces when outnumbered, lay low, and get to the airport.

Simple rules to live by, if you want to keep living, and prevent the other side from scoring a victory.

The failure was from the people on the ground. Job one is see to the well being of your people.

If they had left the office at 5:00 none of this would have happened.

Well the Benghazi scandal just got worse for Obama:

CBS News has learned that during the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, the Obama Administration did not convene its top interagency counterterrorism resource: the Counterterrorism Security Group, (CSG).


"The CSG is the one group that's supposed to know what resources every agency has. They know of multiple options and have the ability to coordinate counterterrorism assets across all the agencies," a high-ranking government official told CBS News. "They were not allowed to do their job. They were not called upon."


Information shared with CBS News from top counterterrorism sources in the government and military reveal keen frustration over the U.S. response on Sept. 11, the night ambassador Chris Stevens and 3 other Americans were killed in a coordinated attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya.


The circumstances of the attack, including the intelligence and security situation there, will be the subject of a Senate Intelligence Committee closed hearing on Nov. 15, with additional hearings to follow.


Counterterrorism sources and internal emails reviewed by CBS News express frustration that key responders were ready to deploy, but were not called upon to help in the attack.


CBS News has agreed not to quote directly from the emails, and to protect the identities of the sources who hold sensitive counterterrorism posts within the State Department, the US military and the Justice Department.


As to why the Counterterrorism Security Group was not convened, National Security Council Spokesman Tommy Vietor told CBS News "From the moment the President was briefed on the Benghazi attack, the response effort was handled by the most senior national security officials in governments. Members of the CSG were of course involved in these meetings and discussions to support their bosses."


Absent coordination from Counterterrorism Security Group, a senior US counterterrorism official says the response to the crisis became more confused. The official says the FBI received a call during the attack representing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and requesting agents be deployed. But he and his colleagues agreed the agents "would not make any difference without security and other enablers to get them in the country and synch their efforts with military and diplomatic efforts to maximize their success."


Another senior counter terrorism official says a hostage rescue team was alternately asked to get ready and then stand down throughout the night, as officials seemed unable to make up their minds.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-575 ... 1&tag=page

CBS News is rather late to this, but I'm glad they finally are reporting on it. Though I'm guessing it was in fear of Glenn Beck.

During his Wednesday evening broadcast, Glenn Beck revealed that he and his network, TheBlaze, are absolutely certain based on “very well-sourced information” that two media outlets — one a network — do indeed have emails proving the Obama White House gave orders to “stand down” during the terror attack in Benghazi.

Beck said it is incumbent upon those media outlets to release the information and provide Americans with the truth, rather than shield the president. If they refrain from doing so, Beck said he will “expose them.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/glenn-b ... e-exposed/

Doesn't make the slightest difference what games you try and play: the correction I gave about an embassy remains correct.

I really don't care if you're right about the legal status of embassies and consulates or not, since it is completely irrelevent and you know it. What I think everyone here should be insulted by is your implication that we're dumb enough to be distracted over a pointless wordgame when there are 4 dead Americans.

We now know that the counterterrorism group never met, while Benghazi was going on, that is way more important than your little word games.

Clearly you did care because you took the trouble to address it.
Are you going to extend the same courtesy to John_Browning?

Once again with the manufactured outrage.
Your arguments are, as always, empty.

There are 4 dead Americans. What will you do now?
(aside from desperately trying to have a virtual Obama hanging because he is so obviously the devil incarnate and personally responsible for absolutely everything you don't like)

Only reason I commented on what you said was because you were attempting to distract everyone with an argument over something that is irrelevent.

As to John_Browning, I understand his sentiments on this issue, nor is he trying to distract people with arguments over things that are not relevent.



Seriously, if you're trying to provoke me, you're doing a pretty bad job. Cornflake quick question, were either one of you Grandfathers' in the United States Military? Reason I'm asking is because I have two possible responses concerning your comments, but are dependent on that bit of information.



http://video.foxnews.com/v/194018645100 ... t_id=86925

Though I know you have a pathological dislike of Fox News and Republicans, I think you need to hear from a Marine about this.

http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2011/knowless/
But of course, that will be just more smear stories. It always is when it comes to Faux Noise, isn't it?

I'm not going to answer your question because my family history is private and not for you to examine and weave into another distraction but suffice it to say, you would be surprised - very surprised.

Should some of these Inuyasha topics be moved to PPR, where we officially have a bit more latitude for expressing opinions?

Excellent point.

[Moved from News and Current Events to PPR]

At least President Obama knows how to spell. Your smear campaigns would seem a little less childish if you bothered to verify your spelling at all. Checking your "facts" might also help.


And, why should you care what these other networks report? You're never going to watch them, anyway.

PBS had quite good coverage on the issue.

And what response is being called for, after the fact?

Not who is to blame, but what could have been done.

The problem, when security is removed, funding cut off, and you are told to withdraw, and you do not, you should be fired. Dead people cannot be fired.

By next morning, we knew who was dead, the other twenty four Intelligence Agents had been withdrawn, there was nothing to defend.

Send in the Marines to what? Not live up to our no boots on the ground agreement, that turned a no fly zone into some extended bombing?

Bomb Benghazi back to the stone age during the following pro American demostrations? That would stop the locals from telling the foreign fighters to leave. It would also be an act of war, rude, and destroy all trust.

It was not a hostage situation, no one was left behind, and that building was no longer useful.

All diplomatic agreements, with all countries, follow agreements that were old before the US was a country.

When 78 real diplomats were kidnapped in Iran, at a real embassy, we did not invade, bomb, and in fact paid damages. Our insistance of making Shah Junior the next leader was withdrawn. Picking the head of state is not our role. The CIA training the Shah's Secret Police in torture, murder, was the cause, many died because they might have had democratic thoughts.

The Anglo American Oil Company was behind it, make someone King, and own him. When a Democrat was elected, he got killed, the Shah took over, for stability, and called off other elections. It worked in Saudi Arabia, other Gulf States, where people who ask questions vanish.

Libya does not want an imposed Saudi Religious Kingdom, backed by imported religious warriors and the CIA. Neither does Algeria.

The CIA is playing for the wrong team.

Actually Cornflake the idea that you are claiming to have more objectivity than me at this point is laughable. Considering we:

1. have 4 dead Americans, including an Ambassador and 2 Navy Seals
2. the fact that they ordered potential rescuers to stand down 3 times
3. the fact that the Counterterrorism Security Group, (CSG) wasn't conveined
4. the fact it has come out that they knew it was work of terrorism by 9/12 at the latest, yet spent the next several weeks blaming video which they knew had nothing to do with this.
5. the fact that the Ambassador's requests for additional security was ignored
6. that rather important documents were still found at the site AFTER the FBI supposedly had gone through the site.
7. that until today the FBI was not getting access to the suspect being held in Tunisa (and that is due to Senator Lindsey Graham)
8. The fact that another person identified in Consulate security camera tapes lounging around at restaurant (whatever you want to call it) in Benghazi, was interviewed by the New York Times, while drinking some sort of fruit drink (can't remember if the story specified if alcohol was also in the drink)
9. We have the fact that the state department either ignored warnings (prior attacks, assassination attempts on the British Ambassador, etc.) due to incompetitence; or they were ordered to ignore warning signs.
10. The constantly changing story, including Obama claiming he gave the order for our forces to rescue those people. Well if he gave the order, it would have been recorded and then someone disobeyed the President; however, it's also plausible that the President never gave any such order.
11. The fact the attack lasted for over 7 hours when we could have gotten jet fighters there in about an hour, and marines there in 2 hours... To hell if it causes a diplomatic incident, if they were doing the job of protecting foreign diplomats better, then we wouldn't have had to send the marines.
12. The fact that most of the media tried to sweep this under the rug, some even tried to attack Romney as being a "loose cannon," when they should have been trying to figure out what the hell happened.

Cornflake, that you are conveintly ignoring as to why the media should have been focusing on this as well as in the case of the 12th reason why most media outlets are not trustworthy. At least in Watergate nobody died.

As far as manufactured outrage, got news for you Cornflake it isn't manufactured, as a grandson of a World War II veteran, I am pissed off with good reason.

How about you walk up to a military veteran who has actually been paying attention to this and tell them the big fuss over Benghazi is nothing more than Republicans playing politics. Just a word of warning, at best you'll probably chewed out and it wouldn't surprise me if you end up with a broken nose.

The Benghazi situation isn't some massive conspiracy (aside from maybe the attempt to cover it up), it was either inexcusable incompetitence, or the fact people were so blinded by political narratives and ideology that they didn't act on the glaring warning signs, nor did they send help. Now they are trying to cover up either said incompetitence, or how ideology blinded them and possibly how it continues to blind them.

Finally we have the fact that if this had happened under President Bush, the media would have been like sharks in a feeding frenzy, as would you, as would Fox News, and I would also be ticked off as well. Cornflake in this back and forth all you have demonstrated is that you are far more partisan than I am and that you are way more gullable than I am. It was fairly obvious that the Administration was lieing early on, you don't see Rocket Propelled Grenades in a "spontaneous protest," it doesn't take a bunch of "experts" in order to figure that part out.

Like I said - Alcan called and they want their tinfoil back.