FOX News: “EXCLUSIVE: CIA operators were denied request for help during Benghazi attack, sources say”
At what point does this become a story beyond Fox News?
Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later was denied by U.S. officials — who also told the CIA operators twice to “stand down” rather than help the ambassador’s team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.
Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was part of a small team who was at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When he and others heard the shots fired, they informed their higher-ups at the annex to tell them what they were hearing and requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to “stand down,” according to sources familiar with the exchange. Soon after, they were again told to “stand down.”
Woods and at least two others ignored those orders and made their way to the consulate which at that point was on fire. Shots were exchanged. The rescue team from the CIA annex evacuated those who remained at the consulate and Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack. They could not find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight.
At that point, they called again for military support and help because they were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied. There were no communications problems at the annex, according those present at the compound. The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Spectre gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights. The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours — enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just 480 miles away, to arrive. Fox News has also learned that two separate Tier One Special operations forces were told to wait, among them Delta Force operators.
What. in the hell. was going on?
Woods’s father, Charles Woods, alluded to all this in his interview with Glenn Beck. This story puts more meat on the bone.
It seems like an extraordinarily important story to me. Is it just me??
Ding.
Patterico (8b3905) — 10/26/2012 @ 10:01 amObviously Valerie Jarrett was busy and couldn’t make a decision.
SPQR (768505) — 10/26/2012 @ 10:04 amI remember at the end of the movie Platoon, the VC were overrunning the US post.
The only hope of survival was to call in a strike on the post.
Was this considered?
AZ Bob (7d2a2c) — 10/26/2012 @ 10:04 amIt is the story of this election, at some level even surpassing even the economy.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/26/2012 @ 10:05 amIt is not just you, Patterico. It is an incredibly important story that has been straining st the seams to get out for weeks.
elissa (106c9c) — 10/26/2012 @ 10:05 am____________________________________________
It seems like an extraordinarily important story to me. Is it just me??
Yes, it’s just you, Patterico. You’re too conservative and partisan. You’re unfair and heartless!
Mark (66bba6) — 10/26/2012 @ 10:06 amI am coming more and more to the conclusion that Pres’ent Obama meant every word when he said that he intends to bring the Benghazi killers to Justice …
To Justice, where AG Holder can be relied upon to treat the case the same way he treated the New Black Panther Voter Intimidation case …
Alasdair (2cd241) — 10/26/2012 @ 10:10 amWhen this first broke I thought it was a tragic but ultimately small-scale catastrophe, and that the political import for Americans was the thuggish assault on free speech against the film-maker, not the chaotic details of what sounded like a confused, botched effort in Libya. I thought, well Obama and Clinton can’t be personally responsible for all the details of a minor diplomatic outpost (let’s face it, Libya is minor no matter what your emotions tell you), so let’s find the mid-level goofus who really did make the call, and call _him_ on the carpet.
But this new information is just batsh#t crazy.
It really should be major news nationwide, and could prove to be the decisive nail in Obama’s electoral coffin, if there are pundits willing to parse it and question it with intelligence and grit. (We’ll see whether those beasts actually exist.)
Romney’s people have apparently made the in-house decision not to pursue it aggressively, for whatever their reasons are; but _some_body ought to be banging this drum good and loud, that’s for sure. It’s disgusting, and it says a lot that a commercial can never say.
Gojira, King of Monsters (5a9950) — 10/26/2012 @ 10:11 amThey were never told to stand down. that is a rethuglikkkan lie.
JD (b6d8e8) — 10/26/2012 @ 10:12 amMr. Woods will never get on anything but Fox.
mg (31009b) — 10/26/2012 @ 10:12 amShameful. He said it all.
It’s not just you, boss.
“It seems like an extraordinarily important story to me. Is it just me??”
Racist.
Gojira, King of Monsters (5a9950) — 10/26/2012 @ 10:14 amSimply this story is about to explode all over the Obama campaign like the dye pack of bills on a bank robber. Job 1 for any CIC is keep our people safe. The dishonesty here is astounding
Bugg (234f77) — 10/26/2012 @ 10:16 amand disqualifying. And to think the big problem for the MFM was not Obama’s nonsense but Romney expressing outrage. In retrospect Romney might not have been sufficiently outraged.
If this is true, can the non-Fox MSM really sit on this for another dozen days?
jim2 (b78fc5) — 10/26/2012 @ 10:17 amBut, lady parts, binders, Big Bird, etc
Media Mutters (721840) — 10/26/2012 @ 10:20 amthe blood of those 2 men are on the hands of Obama … remember, Obama went to bed right after they where killed …
he went to sleep ???
JeffC (488234) — 10/26/2012 @ 10:20 amThe only part of this story the lip locked media will cover will be the political investment Fox News has in conservatism. Bootlickers.
mg (31009b) — 10/26/2012 @ 10:21 amI predict “Crickets.”
The MSM has too much invested in Teh One to allow this the oxygen it needs. They will go into full cover-up mode (if they are not already there). Perhaps Jake Trapper will push it but he won’t get any support from the suits at ABC.
Bill M (e0a4e5) — 10/26/2012 @ 10:26 amWhich is why Obama wants early voting.
nk (875f57) — 10/26/2012 @ 10:29 amCould the truth of Bengazhigate be so damming the Administration sees the toxic cover-up as the preferred alternative, or are they already too far down the primrose path to change fairy tales now?
My blood runs cold when I try to imagine what could be worse for Obama than Bengazigate. Yet, the question must be asked.
ropelight (382d2f) — 10/26/2012 @ 10:32 amWait there’s even more in the piece, if you can take it;
The American special operators, Woods, Doherty and at least two others were part of the Global Response Staff, a CIA element, based at the CIA annex and were protecting CIA operators who were part of a mission to track and repurchase arms in Benghazi that had proliferated in the wake of Muammar Qaddafi’s fall. Part of their mission was to find the more than 20,000 missing MANPADS, or shoulder-held missiles capable of bringing down a commercial aircraft. According to a source on the ground at the time of the attack, the team inside the CIA annex had captured three Libyan attackers and was forced to hand them over to the Libyans. U.S. officials do not know what happened to those three attackers and whether they were released by the Libyan forces.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/cia-operators-were-denied-request-for-help-during-benghazi-attack-sources-say/#ixzz2AQZTon3p
narciso (ee31f1) — 10/26/2012 @ 10:42 amIt’s almost humorous that you lead this story with “FOX NEWS EXCLUSIVE”.
Drider (b003e1) — 10/26/2012 @ 10:45 amOf course it’s a FOX News exclusive, the rest of the networks will be exclusively trying to bury the story.
With every new revelation this story becomes simultaneously more infuriating and heartbreaking. I can’t imagine their families finding out this piece of information, especially knowing the media is complicit with the WH to suppress, deny, and stonewall.
I think it’s an immensely important story as it appears to be a story that could effectively break this presidency. How is that kind of story anything but immensely important?
My biggest concern is discovering the reason for the denial of help being because the administration didn’t want to upset the ME, whether citizenry or terrorists, thus opted to sacrifice American lives instead to keep them appeased.
Dana (292dcf) — 10/26/2012 @ 10:48 amI don’t know if I am furious or heartbroken.
This is all about the gutsy call, isn’t it? The fear of the failure of a US attack hurting Obama politically.
MayBee (4901b0) — 10/26/2012 @ 10:49 amI see Dana feels so very much like I do.
MayBee (4901b0) — 10/26/2012 @ 10:50 amObama sent the American military to bomb these same Libyans when they were killing other Libyans. It’s when they were killing Americans he lost his confidence.
MayBee (4901b0) — 10/26/2012 @ 10:51 amHe was able to appear the rescuer to the Libyans when he sent Americans to bomb the bad Libyans. A momentary savior.
These were Americans. Why would he put his neck on the line for them – the ME would not be impressed.
Whose opinion of him does he care most about?
Dana (292dcf) — 10/26/2012 @ 10:54 amDana, I have given up on trying to apply logic, decency and common sense to anything this administration does.
Drider (b003e1) — 10/26/2012 @ 10:54 amFrom Fast and Furious to Libya, we will never know their intentions on why any of that happened the way it did until they are out of office and we have proper investigations on the mindset as to why they have done what they did.
Hopefully those people will be held accountable with prison terms and not the self accountability that Hillary seems to be happy with.
I don’t think there was any Fox News when 3 Days of the Condor was made.
I am thinking that if this is really the truth, there are going to be more military and CIA folk that will be unwilling to follow orders and just shut up. I’ve never been in the military, but I know that “following orders” is not required in the face of orders against the Military Code of Conduct. At some point the dereliction of duty of a commanding officer must be an issue.
The parents of these men who were abandoned to the slaughter will not go away.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/26/2012 @ 10:58 amIt is a sad day for this country when those whom we have placed in harm’s way are abandoned. We who signed that contract to go into harm’s way, expected that we might be mis-used or “wasted,” but deliberately abandoned?
Michael M. Keohane (065989) — 10/26/2012 @ 10:58 amObama sent the American military to bomb these same Libyans when they were killing other Libyans. It’s when they were killing Americans he lost his confidence.
Comment by MayBee
A-freakin-men
JD (436368) — 10/26/2012 @ 11:03 amThis isn’t exactly heroic “Saving Private Ryan material is it? Obmama lover Tom Hanks prolly won’t be making a movie about Benghaz1.
elissa (106c9c) — 10/26/2012 @ 11:07 amWell, they may have thought, nobody knew about any other Americans there. That location was secret, and that they were there and how many and it was not known to many Libyans. (except later the attackers did. Who did the people in Washington tell?)
I didn’t know till today that some of the people at the mission were not assigned there. Basic details about that attack are still not public, or maybe only accidentally revealed.
Sammy Finkelman (a1f34f) — 10/26/2012 @ 11:11 amIt’s not so easy as that, MD in Philly. What you’re referring to is Article 92, which is failure to obey orders. The article reads as follows:
This allows servicemen to refuse to carry out an illegal order, such as murdering civilians. The order to stand down, while reprehensible, was not illegal. Those who issued it were derelict in their duty, but that in and of itself would not absolve one of insubordination should the order be ignored.
radar (3a664a) — 10/26/2012 @ 11:11 amAnyway, my point isn’t to absolve the administration of its gross misconduct. Just trying to point out that, as a legal point, it’s not so cut and dried for the guys on the ground. I’m not a lawyer which means I was never in JAG, but that’s my understanding. Anyone who has expertise, feel free to correct me.
radar (3a664a) — 10/26/2012 @ 11:13 amYou’re right, radar. What makes a soldier is obedience.
nk (875f57) — 10/26/2012 @ 11:16 amObviously most of the media wants Obama to win and anything that goes against the BS administration meme will not be tolerated. Such as in the cartoon which has the three stereotypical monkeys portrayed by CBS, ABC and NBC.
Rather shocked to see that the lefty south Florida newspaper Sun-Sentinel endorsed Mittens. Man, the people commenting on it act royally ticked off that their Messiah is being dissed. And CBS wonders if white men are against Choom because he’s black?
Saw another article stating that sHrillary did ask for more security in Libya but was turned down.
Calypso Louis Farrakhan (e799d8) — 10/26/2012 @ 11:18 amFurther details;
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/10/26/ac-130u-gunship-was-on-scene-in-benghazi-obama-admin-refused-to-let-it-fire/
narciso (ee31f1) — 10/26/2012 @ 11:19 amPatterico, it’s not just you. This is really the last straw, or I hope it is. The President is a crook, and I say so on my blog.
We all need to speak out.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/26/2012 @ 11:19 amDana – they care more about the optics.
JD (436368) — 10/26/2012 @ 11:21 amthanks for your comment, radar, and I am sure you are correct.
Years ago I knew of someone who had been in Delta and refused a command in a live battle situation because the person giving the command was apparently not knowledgeable in the limitations of the weapons system he was in charge of. He was later put up on charges. He was judged innocent in refusing the order as he was correct that to obey would have unnecessarily put US soldiers at risk, but he was disciplined for how he refused to obey the order- probably not very politely or respectfully.
I imagine there might be a more defensible way by reporting to a Congressional Committee with oversight of military or intelligence affairs, rather than going to the press.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/26/2012 @ 11:23 amForget the Fiscal Cliff folks, lame duck Congress is up to its eyeballs in investigation of corruption, stupidity, and cover ups.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/26/2012 @ 11:24 amMy blood runs cold when I try to imagine what could be worse for Obama than Bengazigate. Yet, the question must be asked.
Maybe we supplied the attacker’s weapons.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/26/2012 @ 11:34 amBubba’s calling in retainers and Hill’s walk back now makes perfect sense.
There’s going to be a terrific fight over who gave orders and who was following orders a la Nuremberg.
Hanging may be on the table.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/26/2012 @ 11:40 amYour story sounds about right, MD. I’m a former Marine, but I wasn’t infantry and I’ve never been in combat, so I can’t speak authoritatively about how such heat-of-battle disputes. I can tell you, however, that nk’s right – the very foundation of military discipline is obeying orders. If we all obeyed only those orders that made sense to us, chaos ensues. When you enlist or receive a commission, you are putting your trust in those of higher rank whether you realize it or not.
radar (3a664a) — 10/26/2012 @ 11:45 amIt seems to be even worse. Evidently the fire fight, with morters, apparently was being followed in real time. Inside the White House Situation Room as well as around town. Obama, feeling the press of his visit to Los Vegas, evidently went to bed during the fight. Today it’s being reported that Hillary, no less, asked for more security but was denied by Obama.
Michelle may have had her first “feel good about America” when Obama was elected but this has to be the first time all Americans should be ashamed of their C-I-C.
cedarhill (38ca12) — 10/26/2012 @ 11:48 am42-Bingo.
mg (31009b) — 10/26/2012 @ 11:49 amLet’s be realistic about what we can expect from the MFM.
Pat Caddell: Media Have Become An “Enemy Of The American People”
Of course, he media decided to keep information away from the American people a long time ago. Think of Stalin fan Walter Duranty, the NYT Moscow Bureau chief and how he hid the Ukranian famines among other Soviet horrors. Think Cronkite and Tet. The Soviets had very good relations with the western media; they didn’t have to blackmail reporters and editors to write complete lies about the US or kill true stories harmful to the communist cause. They received willing cooperation.
Just as Hamas and Hezbollah do now. When pressed, western reporters claim they only go along with the Palywood fiction industry because groups like Hamas and Hezbollah confiscate their passports and otherwise intimidate them into going along with the fraud.
But then, no one is forcing them to go and become the “hostages” they know they’ll become before they ever step on the plane. The song and dance they do with Hamas and Hezbollah is just part of the kabuki theater so these reporters can deny their biases.
Remember this blast from the past?
NYT: The News We Kept To Ourselves
I won’t quote it because like everything Eason Jordan was ever involved with it’s pure propaganda. The poor lad, as CNN’s news chief he was forced to report what the Hussein regime demanded he report lest the locals he hired to keep his Baghdad bureau open and running be subject to regime reprisals.
Of course, other news organizations managed to avoid that danger by not having Baghdad bureaus open and running. Thus not having any locals the regime could take revenge upon if they didn’t pass along unfiltered Iraqi propaganda.
Translation: Eason Jordan willingly carried Hussein’s water.
Recall how Eason Jordan didn’t get fired after admitting his organization had jumped at the chance to become part of Saddam Hussein’s propaganda organization.
He only got fired after falsely accusing US troops of deliberately targeting journalists at a conference in Davos, Switzerland.
Even when he wasn’t being paid he was an anti-American propagandist.
As Pat Caddell points out, things are worse now. I have no doubt that some reporters, like Jake Tapper, at news organization that are not Fox would like to pursue the story. And some may even have the clout to do it. But they’ll have to buck the prevailing corporate news culture to do it. And that corporate news culture believes Obama’s efforts to diminish US power, snub our allies, and empower our enemies is a good thing.
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/26/2012 @ 11:49 amSome enterprising Congresscritter needs to commence hearings on this IMMEDIATELY.
radar (3a664a) — 10/26/2012 @ 11:50 amThis may not be the most apt description, but I feel like William Wallace when he discovers the Bruce defending King longshanks. Heartbroken.
Felipe (3243af) — 10/26/2012 @ 11:59 amDon’t expect help from Congress or you’ll end up like those brave SEALs in Benghazi waiting in vain for someone else to do what we’re going to have to do for ourselves.
I’m afraid the time has come for loyal Americans to take to the streets, particularly the street in front of the White House. This is still our country, but it won’t be for long unless we’re willing to fight for it.
Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country.
ropelight (382d2f) — 10/26/2012 @ 12:03 pmradar @ 48, that’d be a bad idea. The media would then start screaming the GOP is trying to manufacture an October surprise.
The NYT et al would bury the facts and rant about how the House republicans (like Reid would ever let this come up in the Senate) are launching a politically, and no doubt racially, motivated assault on our poor Chicago Jesus whom we all know did as well as anybody ever could have because Bill Clinton told us so.
I hate to point out the political considerations that we have to take into account, but if we ever want to get to the bottom of this and see justice done for these four dead Americans we have to kick the corrupt anti-American Obama administration to the curb. That might not happen if the corrupt anti-American media uses this to try to fire up the base.
Right now I think the main players in GOP are playing their cards right. I believe Romney knows if he tries to make an issue of this, the media will try to make him the issue. And the House leadership is just demanding answers, not hearings.
And, once again, with Romney as President the perps won’t be able to count on pardons for murder, treason, obstruction, perjury…
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/26/2012 @ 12:06 pmLittle-known(?) Fact:
mrt721 (75a1ff) — 10/26/2012 @ 12:33 pmValerie Jarrett was born in Iran.
That crazy story about the kidnapping of the ambassador so that he could be exchanged … is suddenly seeming not so crazy.
If there was a Specter on-scene with designated targets and they were told to stand down … “Coward” would be the least of what those in that chain of command should be called. “Traitor” is a distinct possibility.
htom (412a17) — 10/26/2012 @ 12:34 pmTo deny assistance during an attack is unthinkable.
AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92) — 10/26/2012 @ 12:35 pmWhoever did this needs to be assigned to that warehouse in nowhere that they sent Admiral Kimmel to following Pearl Harbor (and that would be too good for him/her).
Can’t march all that good, ropelight. Shoot even less. Just go and vote.
nk (875f57) — 10/26/2012 @ 12:42 pmFWIW, in a previous life I was responsible for embassy evac planning for a six-country area. My guys and I did all the coordination with the military liaisons to the embassies and the Marine security detachments. The plans were fairly comprehensive, and included air and ground methods, potential safe houses, etc.
They also included an assessment of QRF (Quick-reaction forces) that might be available, and how quickly, as well as who the authorizing official was to execute the evacs. There were even “trip-wires” that would cause us to execute if those authorizations weren’t (or couldn’t be) given.
My point: I did that in the mid/late 90s, BEFORE 9/11. Is somebody going to claim there was no similar plan for Libya? In such a chaotic region? Really?
Who decided? Who directed? Who knew? WHO COVERED IT UP?!
Virtual Insanity (f3acb3) — 10/26/2012 @ 12:43 pmI remember at the end of the movie Platoon, the VC were overrunning the US post.
The only hope of survival was to call in a strike on the post.
Was this considered?
Comment by AZ Bob — 10/26/2012 @ 10:04 am
It gets worse.
According to late-breaking news, there was an AC-130 gunship overhead (not just the previously announced “unarmed” drone), and one of the people on-the-ground had a laser-designator on the mortar-crew who was shelling the compound, and the National Command Authority refused to allow the AC-130 gunship to open fire!
As they used to say in the Old-West:
Get a whip, hangings too good for him.
AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92) — 10/26/2012 @ 12:43 pmHow about Pancetta’s remark that they didn’t come to the defense of the consulate because they didn’t know what was going on?
Except for the live video feeds and phone line open to the men on the ground, that is…
Yes, it is possible that the attack was a “tar baby” attack, meant to draw us into a widening fight. Except the Libyan government apparently OK’d the use of our own air power in the defense — we’d not have been risking war with them. And I simply cannot believe our forces are incapable of operating on short notice; if our military commanders do not have contingency plans in place, or cannot improvise a relatively simple operation, then they should be relieved of duty.
This administration has lied about this from the very beginning. They have even gone so far as to imprison someone in order to maintain their lies.
Impeachment is too good for them. Let’s hope they’re tossed on their asses in a couple of weeks.
Then pray they don’t act as immature and thuggish between election day and the inauguration as they have so far.
Rob Crawford (e6f27f) — 10/26/2012 @ 12:52 pmSusan Rice later lied and said Ty Woods was part of Ambassador Stevens’ protection team.
Remember that? To cover for the fact there wasn’t enough protection at the consulate. She said, of course there was! Those two guys who died were there protecting the Ambassador!
She said that, when in reality they were not there protecting the Ambassador and had been told NOT TO SAVE HIM.
What a horrible horrible lie.
MayBee (4901b0) — 10/26/2012 @ 12:59 pmThere was no security detail, the Feb 17th guards had been told to stand down, according to Lake’s account of the intercepts,
narciso (ee31f1) — 10/26/2012 @ 1:07 pmYes, we already knew there was no security detail. But now we know the people Rice tried to say were there protecting the Ambassador were actually told by her Admin *not* to protect the Ambassador.
MayBee (4901b0) — 10/26/2012 @ 1:10 pmShe said that, when in reality they were not there protecting the Ambassador and had been told NOT TO SAVE HIM.
What a horrible horrible lie.
Great point, MayBee
JD (436368) — 10/26/2012 @ 1:12 pmI am waiting for the White House letter to the State Department denying extra security. Hilary on one side, Obama on the other.
But this is a scandal not seen in American Politics since Reconstruction.
White House denies security, denies crisis response resources, 4 dead Americans then fabricates false story to avoid responsibility for decisions. And they will all fall on the President personally.
Rodney King's Spirit (9ce6d4) — 10/26/2012 @ 1:13 pmI find it incredible that any West-Winger who has lied to the American People on this issue can sleep soundly.
AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92) — 10/26/2012 @ 1:19 pmIt would only prove that the American Left is bereft of a soul.
Virtual Insanity, I take it then you’re familiar with these DoS publications (or whatever publications these superseded depending on how far back you lived that life):
As I understand it, these manuals establish certain security requirements for diplomatic missions which can be waived. But only by the Secretary. In other words, by no one at a lower level than Hillary! Clinton.
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/26/2012 @ 1:27 pmDon’t forget throwing someone in prison to bolster their story. They were perfectly comfortable with tossing someone innocent of any involvement in the incident into prison to provide themselves with political cover.
Rob Crawford (e6f27f) — 10/26/2012 @ 1:36 pmI approached the requirement from the military side, Steve57.
I assume the mil liaison guys read all that stuff; my job was much simpler than the DoS guys’.
Virtual Insanity (f3acb3) — 10/26/2012 @ 1:38 pmThroughout the Obama Administration, I have been disappointed by the level of incompetence, self-serving, and arrogance. From the days after his election, there have been weekly/daily FOOBARS. These include the $850B pork fest (billed as stimulus), cash4clunkers, obamacare, carbon-trading, card-check, border security, etc.. I’ve thought the President could not be worse. Especially since he’s hung Sequestration around the nation’s neck. I thought that the ROE in Afghanistan were ridiculous and have cost many casualties. I thought fixing a day to leave Afghanistan and telling our enemies made the sacrifice of our soldiers without value. But the Libyian fiasco has me believing I underestimated the venality of our President. Abandoning the troops in combat is impeachable. The people responsible must be held accountable.
jks (0758a0) — 10/26/2012 @ 1:45 pmConsidering that an AC-130 gun ship was orbiting above Manuel Noreiga’s airfield in Panama in 1989 when SEALs were exposed and pinned down on the tarmac and killed one by one as the pilot and gunners overhead refused to answer desperate calls for help from the SEALs because higher command authorization could not be obtained in real time. It was later blamed on a radio malfunction. And, that sort of tragedy was never supposed to happen again.
Darth Petraeus has a heap of ‘splainin to do.
ropelight (382d2f) — 10/26/2012 @ 1:46 pmThe return-to-prison for parole violations seems to have been legitimate, the only real questions are a) why it was done in the manner it was and b) why it hadn’t been done months before.
Never waste a distraction might cover both.
htom (412a17) — 10/26/2012 @ 1:47 pmMayBee:
Excellent point. Lies on top of lies, and all of them deadly.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/26/2012 @ 1:53 pmBlackfive has a post up about this now:
Bigger than Watergate: Proof that the President is Lying about Benghazi?
This could be Petraeus speaking. These leaks are coming from CIA. He may want the country to know that he didn’t tell anyone to stand-down.
I noted how Panetta gave a non-denial denial about reports of Stingers reaching the Syrian rebels via Turkey. His non-denial denial was he doesn’t know what the reports are, and that he knows nothing about the US sending arms to the Syrian rebels.
Just saying; there are lots of people who seem to want to put daylight between themselves and what happened in Benghazi. And events and decisions preceding 9/11/2012.
In Petraeus’ case I really do believe he’s too smart to imagine the admin’s various stories are going to hold up to even unserious scrutiny.
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/26/2012 @ 2:06 pmI hope all this is throughly investigated and those involved in deciding to withhold military aid be impeached
EPWJ (e83e82) — 10/26/2012 @ 2:08 pmShoulda put ellipses in front of “Everyone is reporting this..” I cut out a paragraph or so of what we all know is the reporting.
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/26/2012 @ 2:09 pmthoroughly
sorry
EPWJ (e83e82) — 10/26/2012 @ 2:15 pmI think Mitt Romney used sooper sekrit Mormon intel monies from ill gotten Staples stock to fund the YouTube video to prompt the spontaneous and natural outrage which led to this spontaneous arrival of mortars an RPGs as he knew there would be a feckless and gutless response from the king of the gutsy call vtoting present and the subsequent coverup would propel him to victory.
JD (436368) — 10/26/2012 @ 2:17 pmI see the LA Daily News has endorsed Romney. They endorsed Obama last time, but say that he has failed.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/26/2012 @ 2:19 pmPetraeus’ problem is that he’d have to resign in order to speak freely, and even then he cannot reveal classified info (and you can bet that anything regarding Benghazi is classified).
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/26/2012 @ 2:29 pmJD is channeling IMaDickWad.
AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92) — 10/26/2012 @ 2:31 pmWatching Fox and Bob Beckel *cannot* accept this: there is no way the WH would order a stand down in sending in assets. No. Way. He concludes, obviously, that the report is incorrect and/or the sources are very doubtful.
This is the reaction that will preserve the narrative.
Dana (292dcf) — 10/26/2012 @ 2:34 pmPetraeus could ask for a joint-meeting on The Hill of the House and Senate Intelligence Cmte’s where he could, in Executive Session, give them all the dope, and when it’s leaked, it will be coming from Congress (as is usually the case – unless it’s been leaked to the NYT which seems to have a mole in the West Wing).
AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92) — 10/26/2012 @ 2:35 pmHarry Reid injured in car crash
Icy (1c9801) — 10/26/2012 @ 2:36 pm#82, just injured?
Seriously though, one of a handful on that side whose immediate disappearance would help this nation immensely. Right has a few also.
Rodney King's Spirit (9ce6d4) — 10/26/2012 @ 2:40 pm#80 best part is he denies credible sources and reporting by Fox, his employer, while accepting without issue 1 anonymous source on stories from the NYT.
If I am Roger Ailes I call him up right after the show and shove my fist up his anus and rip out his prostate.
Rodney King's Spirit (9ce6d4) — 10/26/2012 @ 2:42 pmThe Las Vegas Review-Journal says Reid is being treated for minor rib injuries. It doesn’t sound serious but I know from experience it’s not pleasant.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/26/2012 @ 2:47 pmReid hospitalized? It was a multiple car accident in a motorcade. Not doing much for man/bear/pig AGW, are they?
If the bad guys were sighted in, why was it too confusing for Washington to give an ok? Or was it deemed too risky a political decision? President Pussy didn’t get ok from Jarrett, perhaps? Nice that it didn’t keep him from beddy-bye, Vegas, Beyonce and JayZ.
Calypso Louis Farrakhan (e799d8) — 10/26/2012 @ 2:53 pmRib injuries can lead to lung problems, which can lead to pneumonia, which is never good in the aged.
I wonder if the Governor is picking through a list of possible replacements (better safe than sorry)?
AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92) — 10/26/2012 @ 2:54 pmNo, anything and everything about Benghazi is not classified. Recall the DoS emails with subject and paragraph markings (SBU)? That stands for “Sensitive But Unclassified.” The serious incident reporting guidance I had to follow in the Nav stated you would not overclassify, and normally the information that went into a serious incident report was unclassified.
There is guidance about the appropriate classifications for various types of information; usually it depended heavily on how it was collected. If you can eyeball it on the street in Benghazi, or New York or LA for that matter, it’s not unclassified.
In any case, President Romney will have absolute authority to declassify information if the Obama admin attempts to overclassify information. Which I don’t think they’ll try as they won’t get away with it. I would say they can’t seriously believe they can classify information that literally hundreds if not thousands of Libyans observed with their own eyes. But this admin can apparently convince itself to believe anything no matter how absurd so there’s the possibility they may try. But they won’t get away with it.
Just to clear things up the events of that night are not an intelligence matter, no matter how many times the Obamunists try to imply it is. In the military this sort of assault would have been reported via a Commander’s Operational Report, or OPREP for short. It’s an operational matter, and because such things can be observed by people with no special means of collectionand indeed with no security clearances, I repeat, they are not classified.
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/26/2012 @ 2:59 pmIf you can eyeball it on the street in Benghazi, or New York or LA for that matter, it’s not
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/26/2012 @ 3:00 pmunclassified.I hope Hairy Reed is well.
JD (436368) — 10/26/2012 @ 3:01 pmNo, it won’t. Beckel is starting to go through the 5 stages of grief. As he watches the icon of liberalism destroy his party.
Denial. It’s just the first step.
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/26/2012 @ 3:05 pmPanetta and all the rest of them go into full denial/CYA mode. Disgusting.
Colonel Haiku (b7f139) — 10/26/2012 @ 3:05 pmBeckel was denied by Fox Reporter who broke story sources are “as good as they come.”
I honestly think our President is actively involved in a cover up. Did not think it till today really.
Looks like he denied requests for help before and during the attack …. and used video as cover up.
Be nice if WH Press Corps goes balls to wall on this. One of them might get very wealthy and famous breaking it.
Rodney King's Spirit (9ce6d4) — 10/26/2012 @ 3:09 pmNow CIA is saying “we the CIA did not deny anything” which is code for when asked you keep quiet and point the finger across the room to the other guy.
Rodney King's Spirit (9ce6d4) — 10/26/2012 @ 3:10 pmWas the left on to something and didn’t know it?
mg (31009b) — 10/26/2012 @ 3:13 pmGeneral Betrayus?
The definitive election analysis from 11 days out.
http://www.redstate.com/2012/10/26/why-i-think-obama-is-toast/
I don’t want to hear anymore mewling. The pollsters that care about work post-election are going to fall into line under 5 days to go.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/26/2012 @ 3:16 pmJake Tapper quotes CIA spokesman: “No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.”
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/26/2012 @ 3:16 pmWhite House Situation Room!
AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92) — 10/26/2012 @ 3:20 pm86. I’ll say a prayer for Reid, like the Psalms’ “dash their babies’ heads”.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/26/2012 @ 3:22 pmHarry deserves a sucker punch.
mg (31009b) — 10/26/2012 @ 3:25 pm#97 …. CIA, but it does not address any other agency or the WH itself. That is PARSING at its best. Panetta t DOD seems to be saying they denied help but even his comments are parsing.
This really looks like the WH thru DoD and Panetta denied resources to CIA and State in time of need.
To boot, Hilary asked for Security early on and was told NO.
So is it Jarrett or Obama? Who made the call?
Rodney King's Spirit (9ce6d4) — 10/26/2012 @ 3:27 pmflyweight Reid needs to be cornered, given a pounding to his 80-year-old kidneys and then dropped into one of those holes out in the Nevada desert.
Colonel Haiku (b7f139) — 10/26/2012 @ 3:30 pmvia Doug Ross, on the swap Ambassador conspiracy:
video-from-libya-dont-shoot-us-we-were-sent-by-mursi
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/26/2012 @ 3:41 pmIf Reid were a Republican, and the Governor a Democrat, somebody would already have hired private security to guard him, and vet the doctors and nurses.
AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92) — 10/26/2012 @ 3:43 pm102. Walid Shoebat website, having trouble with the link.
Evidence BootBlack was behind treason.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/26/2012 @ 3:43 pmnobel peace prizes make you stupid it’s like eating paint chips when you’re little
happyfeet (511b68) — 10/26/2012 @ 3:59 pmI’m lovin’ me some Kirsten Powers this afternoon. She was on fire and calling the 0bama administration out for its outrageous bullsh*t and lies.
Colonel Haiku (b7f139) — 10/26/2012 @ 4:01 pmWell she’s a little more attentive to this subject lately;
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2012/10/benghazi-gate-did-two-heroic-seals-ruin.html
narciso (ee31f1) — 10/26/2012 @ 4:04 pmIowahawk: “With the Obama administration, the future is always certain; it’s the past that’s unpredictable.”
SPQR (768505) — 10/26/2012 @ 4:17 pmI don’t buy that story, that part was a pretext, for
narciso (ee31f1) — 10/26/2012 @ 4:17 pmwhat Zawahiri had directed, avenging the death of Abu Yahya
“With the Obama administration, the future is always certain; it’s the past that’s unpredictable.”
Wasn’t that a Russian “black-joke” about the stability of Soviet History?
AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92) — 10/26/2012 @ 4:24 pmSPQR,
The Iowahawk quote is priceless.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/26/2012 @ 4:34 pm102, 107. Got the link now. Doug Ross is indispensible.
http://www.shoebat.com/2012/09/13/video-from-libya-dont-shoot-us-we-were-sent-by-mursi/
So the plan was to trade the Stevens for the Blind sheik but the two Seals threw a wrench into the grab and Stevens suffocated.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/26/2012 @ 4:41 pmThe Las Vegas Review-Journal says Reid is being treated for minor rib injuries. It doesn’t sound serious but I know from experience it’s not pleasant.
Comment by DRJ — 10/26/2012 @ 2:47 pm
I hope Hairy Reed is well.
Comment by JD — 10/26/2012 @ 3:01 pm
After what this bastard has done to my country, I hope he is in immense and excruciating pain. I hope with every breath that he takes, that he realizes that this is but a small shadow of the pain that he will feel in Hell!
peedoffamerican (ee1de0) — 10/26/2012 @ 4:41 pmhttp://www.shoebat.com/2012/09/13/video-from-libya-dont-shoot-us-we-were-sent-by-mursi/
So the plan was to trade the Stevens for the Blind sheik but the two Seals threw a wrench into the grab and Stevens suffocated.
Comment by gary gulrud — 10/26/2012 @ 4:41 pm
THIS VIDEO IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE BECAUSE THE YOUTUBE ACCOUNT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS VIDEO HAS BEEN TERMINATED
peedoffamerican (ee1de0) — 10/26/2012 @ 4:50 pmSounds like this corrupt administration is doubling down on stupid.
peedoffamerican (ee1de0) — 10/26/2012 @ 4:51 pmThis plotline would never have appeared on The West Wing TV show. President Bartlett and his merry band in the White House were always so, you know, honorable and good and decent and smart and stuff. There were some pretty bad situations they dealt with but they never would have covered up and lied to the American people. And the media was always on the case in that show. Good times. Good times.
elissa (106c9c) — 10/26/2012 @ 5:02 pmIt seems entirely logical and consistent to me that Obama knew about the Benghazi situation but declined to act. He didn’t say no and he didn’t say yes, he thought about it and did nothing. And the end result is everyone sat and watched while Americans died.
Report after report tells us Obama considers every option of every problem, especially national security problems like the Osama bin Laden raid. Naturally he would do the same in an event so close to the election.
In other words, like the student and Senator he was, he votes Present until everything has been perfectly considered, analyzed, and weighed. It sounds so mature and intellectual, but in the real world doing nothing is a decision that has consequences. This may be the first time Obama has had that happen in such a publicly clear and convincing way.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/26/2012 @ 5:06 pmWell they covered up his MS, and his assasination of the Qumari defense minister, but other than that.
narciso (ee31f1) — 10/26/2012 @ 5:06 pmI believe every decision made with regard to the Benghazi attack and resulting aftermath was, is, and will continue to be measured against the possible risk of jeopardizing the president’s re-election.
It is indeed all about optics. Keep the president untarnished, do whatever it takes and get him re-elected.
From now until the election the president must remain above the fray. And everyone in his administration will double down to make sure this happens.
We need just one person on the inside to find their integrity, courage, and righteous indignation, and come forward.
Dana (292dcf) — 10/26/2012 @ 5:15 pmI must have missed the week they did an assasination, narcisio.
elissa (106c9c) — 10/26/2012 @ 5:16 pmThe Quamari defense minister assassination storyline.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/26/2012 @ 5:21 pmOne too many a’s. That should be Qumari defense minister.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/26/2012 @ 5:21 pmFrom Ace,
Rush has an interview with a Special Operations planner who says that in an in extremis situation, as the attack on Libya was, the good guys would not have needed an explicit order to protect US personnel. Their standing general orders to protect US citizens and personnel would have already enabled them to act, absent a contrary order.
Only a negative order would have stopped them.
The question is, who had the authority to give such a negative order?
Dana (292dcf) — 10/26/2012 @ 5:34 pmI listened to most of the interview, Dana. It was with a man who said he was a retired Lieutenant Colonel and special forces veteran. I think he said the people with authority to make this decision are the President and the commander of the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM).
DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/26/2012 @ 5:38 pmYes, that’s correct, DRJ. I think that as the days unfold, it will become more impossible to shield the president from culpability.
(And if we are to believe Ed Klein, Hillary did make the request for more security and was denied. She is the Secretary of State – who has the authority to deny her request?)
Dana (292dcf) — 10/26/2012 @ 5:45 pmOne of the problems with modern communications is that far too many incidents require the buck to be passed up to the White House for response.
And we know that the buck stops on Valerie Jarrett’s desk.
SPQR (768505) — 10/26/2012 @ 5:50 pmGutfield and Bernard were quite funny on The Ted Baxter Show.
mg (31009b) — 10/26/2012 @ 5:55 pm== I think that as the days unfold, it will become more impossible to shield the president from culpability==
It again gets down to who’s been running this bad show. Unfortunately, I am willing to accept (based on past history) the strong possibilty that Barack was asleep or playing video games or something and that ValJar, solo, made the stand down call “in his name”. No, that doesn’t shield the president from culpability–it would make it even worse.
elissa (106c9c) — 10/26/2012 @ 5:57 pmI agree, elissa. I assume the President doesn’t actually send his decision down the chain of command. He makes the decision but a military aide probably sends it.
In addition, other than the nuclear football, I doubt there’s anything that requires the President to be the one making the decision if he passes the responsibility (and the communications code?) to a subordinate. If the order is sent in writing, would anyone even really know who made/sent the decision?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/26/2012 @ 6:04 pmIf Obama loses the election, people are going to be tripping over each other trying to come forward.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/26/2012 @ 6:10 pmI listened to most of the interview, Dana. It was with a man who said he was a retired Lieutenant Colonel and special forces veteran. I think he said the people with authority to make this decision are the President and the commander of the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM).
Comment by DRJ —
I listened too, DRJ. One somewhat ominous aspect is that the flash traffic on secret links may not generate hard copies which could be subpenaed by Congress.
Mike K (1c38da) — 10/26/2012 @ 6:11 pmI would think the SecDef can issue commands as well.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/26/2012 @ 6:12 pmit’s possible the cia had some justifiable concern that any help they would have rendered could have been caught on an incendiary video and uploaded to youtube. Then we’d really have been in a pickle.
happyfeet (1baa7e) — 10/26/2012 @ 6:15 pmRemember when Abu Ghraib was on the front page of the NY Times for 30 straight days?
Remember when Cindy Sheehan hit every nightly news for standing outside President Bush’s ranch.
You would think this story would have some interest.
AZ Bob (1c9631) — 10/26/2012 @ 6:16 pmFox is a partisan, GOP-supporting news outlet. I don’t get my news from partisans. Were they not the ones who invented the emails and Facebook claims of responsibility from certain terrorist groups after the attack on the embassy? I know you guys are angling for a real administration scandal,this just aint it. If anything the real scandal is coming from the GOP side: mourdock, sununni etc. Who next?
The Emperor (03864d) — 10/26/2012 @ 6:22 pmIt’s also possible that someone in command firmly believed we would likely lose more men in a rescue or bombardment attempt than could be saved, and made a difficult call on that basis. But like everyone else here, and especially for the families of the dead in Benghazi, I want to know the truth from this lying liar administration.
elissa (106c9c) — 10/26/2012 @ 6:22 pmBill Kristol,
So who in the government did tell “anybody” not to help those in need? Someone decided not to send in military assets to help those Agency operators. Would the secretary of defense make such a decision on his own? No.
It would have been a presidential decision. There was presumably a rationale for such a decision. What was it? When and why—and based on whose counsel obtained in what meetings or conversations—did President Obama decide against sending in military assets to help the Americans in need?
Dana (292dcf) — 10/26/2012 @ 6:24 pmThe Emperor, still making up stuff, I see. Its the White House that was inventing responsibility for the attack.
SPQR (768505) — 10/26/2012 @ 6:24 pmGutfield and Bernard were quite funny on The Ted Baxter Show.
Comment by mg
beverage spew… funny stuff, mg.
Colonel Haiku (347142) — 10/26/2012 @ 6:25 pmThe deaths of Anericans are just politics to Chimperor.
JD (436368) — 10/26/2012 @ 6:25 pm72, 81, 96.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/petraeus-throws-obama-under-bus_657896.html
There will not be enough popcorn in this world.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/26/2012 @ 6:25 pm137. Sorry, Dana, dinna see yours.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/26/2012 @ 6:26 pm135. “. I don’t get my news from partisans.”
I knew it was just flatulence. Open a window and throw the malodorous boeotian out.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/26/2012 @ 6:29 pmI wish I got that spin, but that statement, only leaves more question, if there was no stand down, why did nearly 50 CIA personnel not engage the attackers, I know some where like the analyst in
narciso (ee31f1) — 10/26/2012 @ 6:30 pmthat prequel to Burn Notice, but still
NBC News : Nothing.
ABC News : There was a link to Jake Tapper’s blog, which discussed the story, but nothing else more prominent.
CBS News : A small story in the lower left corner talks about the commando force available but mentions no details of the multiple calls for help, all of which were denied.
CNN : There was a tiny text-only link to the “Benghazi e-mails” but nothing else.
NY Times : Nothing.
Washington Post : Nothing.
CBC News : Nothing.
BBC News : Nothing.
What would be most amusing, if this wasn’t so serious, is that almost all of the news outlets prominently display “Breaking News” or “Latest News” as taglines. Pathetic.
Thanks Roadkill Diaries.
AZ Bob (1c9631) — 10/26/2012 @ 6:30 pmFor now, I accept Petraeus’ statement that the CIA wasn’t involved in the decision to withhold support for Benghazi. However, that doesn’t let him or the CIA off the hook. I want to know if Petraeus (or someone at the CIA acting on his behalf) knew about this decision in real time.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/26/2012 @ 6:30 pm119. “I believe every decision made with regard to the Benghazi attack and resulting aftermath was, is, and will continue to be measured against the possible risk of jeopardizing the president’s re-election.”
A reasonable position. But the engineered swap of Stevens for Abdel-Rahman is a story with legs as well.
So at trial, does the defendant pursue the former to refute the latter?
Death penalty goes with a swap conviction.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/26/2012 @ 6:36 pmNo way. A non-violent offender accused of a non-violent parole violation is rousted out of his home in the middle of the night by a squad of officers accompanied by the press?
There are violent offenders posting YouTube videos of themselves with other ex-cons flashing guns and drug money; they don’t get this much police strength.
Rob Crawford (d8dade) — 10/26/2012 @ 6:40 pmExcept that you cannot, morally, delegate the responsibility for anything. You can delegate the authority, but not responsibility.
Rob Crawford (d8dade) — 10/26/2012 @ 6:43 pmMr. Bob I think the media like cnn and npr and such feel it would be unfair to get into the details of what happened in Libya this close to the election. It’s kinda like the media is obama’s Allstate agent and what happened in libya was Mayhem.
In their view all of this is just one big accident.
happyfeet (1baa7e) — 10/26/2012 @ 6:44 pm“I wish I got that spin, but that statement, only leaves more question, if there was no stand down, why did nearly 50 CIA personnel not engage the attackers”
narciso – Petraeus’ statement said nobody in CIA ordered anyone to stand down. It does not say they did not pass along orders from DNI or CIC ordering people to stand down.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/26/2012 @ 6:45 pmMore evidence of Obama’s utter incompetence … I can’t recall when Britain failed to assist us – often when no one else in NATO would – in the past.
There’s your Change.
SPQR (768505) — 10/26/2012 @ 6:47 pm“I can’t recall when Britain failed to assist us – often when no one else in NATO would – in the past.”
SPQR – Might have been the gift of Obama speeches on tape or Michelle’s bear hug of the Queen Mum, but you never know with these things.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/26/2012 @ 6:52 pmEither way Petraeus seems aloof.
mg (31009b) — 10/26/2012 @ 6:53 pmCould be why he received the job.
Panetta parried:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/10/26/Report-Contradicts-Panetta
Two drones.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/26/2012 @ 6:55 pmStarting his toast to the queen on her home turf while the band played “God Save the Queen” must be added to the list of candidates, too, daley
elissa (106c9c) — 10/26/2012 @ 6:55 pmelissa – The list is long, much longer than Romney’s GAAAAAFFES!
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/26/2012 @ 6:57 pmNow that Petraeus has said it wasn’t the CIA that denied them help, we can surmise he means “it was the president.”
The only possible rational and moral explanation is that he actually did send a plane in but the new government didn’t want it known they gave permission. Somehow that seems a stretch. I think he just failed to make the gutsy call and came out with the dopiest story ever.
Patricia (e1d89d) — 10/26/2012 @ 6:59 pmJarrett/JEF really believed before they had a story that obliterating the attackers was a no go.
Because turning back the attack would have destroyed the Arab Spring narrative.
Really? The Safe House was a steel cage. They were sacrificing the Ambassador or they believed the attackers wanted him alive, as the You Tube video confirmed “Praise Allah” as reported by the NYT.
I really am having a hard time believing the narrative was worth Steven’s life to the WH.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/26/2012 @ 7:01 pmRemember they issued the tweet from Cairo, before the protests were under where, but not before the AQ tape.
narciso (ee31f1) — 10/26/2012 @ 7:08 pm“I really am having a hard time believing the narrative was worth Steven’s life to the WH.”
gary – Perhaps the WH was worried about the beans Stevens might spill about what was really going on in Libya if he was rescued.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/26/2012 @ 7:11 pm159 Cont. The Kroft interview has Down Low implying that it was a terrorist attack in unsecured territory.
The movie meme out of Cairo was not offered as the cause.
They had forward personnel targetting the Consulate site for Predator or a gun ship. It could have been over in minutes with back up from the Annex, let alone Sicily.
The Special Forces were pulled what 11 days earlier?
It was 9/11.
It seems obvious they thought they had the situation in had, that’s the only possible reason for a “Stand Down”. Incompetence doesn’t make sense.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/26/2012 @ 7:15 pmGun running can be hazardous to your health, especially when it’s the mortars you gave to El Kida.
mg (31009b) — 10/26/2012 @ 7:17 pmMark Steyn:
“Within minutes of the first bullet being fired, the White House knew these heroes would be slaughtered if immediate air support was denied,” said Ty Woods’ father, Charles. “In less than an hour, the perimeters could have been secured, and American lives could have been saved. After seven hours fighting numerically superior forces, my son’s life was sacrificed because of the White House’s decision.”
Why would Obama and Biden do such a thing? Because to launch a military operation against an al-Qaida affiliate on the anniversary of 9/11 would have exposed the hollowness of their boast through convention week and the days thereafter – that Osama was dead, and al-Qaida was finished. And so Ty Woods, Glen Doherty, Sean Smith and Chris Stevens were left to die, and a decision taken to blame an entirely irrelevant video and, as Secretary Clinton threatened, “have that person arrested.” And, in the weeks that followed, the government of the United States lied to its own citizens as thoroughly and energetically as any totalitarian state, complete with the midnight knock-on-the-door from not-so-secret policemen sent to haul the designated fall guy into custody.
This goes far beyond the instinctive secretiveness to which even democratic governments are prone. The Obama administration created a wholly fictional storyline, and devoted its full resources to maintaining it. I understand why Mitt Romney chose not to pursue this line of argument in the final debate. The voters who will determine this election are those who voted for Obama four years ago and this time round either switch to the other fellow or sit on their hands. In electoral terms, it’s probably prudent of Mitt not to rub their faces in their 2008 votes. Nevertheless, when the president and other prominent officials stand by as four Americans die and then abuse their sacrifice as contemptuously as this administration did, decency requires that they be voted out of office as an act of urgent political hygiene
elissa (106c9c) — 10/26/2012 @ 7:19 pmIn re:#17 & #145
Bill M (2f7437) — 10/26/2012 @ 7:25 pmI guess I was right!
Oh, come now. Obama is a Good Man. He certainly loves his wife, his children and his dog. He’s one of us! I’m sure of it! I hope he doesn’t fail.
Pablo (dd58be) — 10/26/2012 @ 7:27 pm0bama’s only hope is that the sh*tdam holds until after the election but, make no mistake, whether ignored by the lapdog media or not, this story will break and it will break big.
Colonel Haiku (347142) — 10/26/2012 @ 7:32 pmBo is living on borrowed time, Pablo.
Colonel Haiku (347142) — 10/26/2012 @ 7:33 pmobama is an obscenely warped and perverted harvardtard like john roberts
and there’s really not a lot to suggest that this mitt romney isn’t cut from the same cloth
happyfeet (578930) — 10/26/2012 @ 7:34 pmApparently some things that can be seen by hundreds are classified:
Senators demand WH declassify Benghazi surveillance video
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/26/2012 @ 7:37 pmKevin M,
Try that link again, please…
Dana (292dcf) — 10/26/2012 @ 7:38 pm161. Indeed, but Stevens was clearly committed to State and Libya. Why couldn’t he be relied on to keep quiet?
The Shoebat video(no longer available) said “Don’t shoot we’re from Morsi”. So it wasn’t Tunisians as first arrests suggested.
Had the “Stand Down” been obeyed would the fuel oil been lit? I’ve forgotten when it took place. But the Seals took Smith back to the annex in spite of that.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/26/2012 @ 7:38 pmOn my knees
mg (31009b) — 10/26/2012 @ 7:39 pmbegging for
justice
Pablo! Bienvenidos de nuevo. Hope you’ll stay around.
nk (875f57) — 10/26/2012 @ 7:40 pm“Why couldn’t he be relied on to keep quiet?”
gary – Sheer speculation. If he was so committed, why not make more of an effort to rescue him or provide adequate security. Big contradiction there.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/26/2012 @ 7:58 pm“Oh, come now. Obama is a Good Man.”
Intentionalism just is, lessons in privileging intent Part 7,329.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/26/2012 @ 8:01 pmSome people are such an easy mark;
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-denies-misleading-benghazi-vows-capture-plotters-184349903–election.html
narciso (ee31f1) — 10/26/2012 @ 8:09 pmKevin M #170 – your link is broken – try “Senators demand WH declassify Benghazi surveillance video” …
(I have been suggesting for a while that the video will confirm or refute the “protest mob” claim )
Alasdair (2cd241) — 10/26/2012 @ 8:18 pm177- lip lock media working the stupid vote.
mg (31009b) — 10/26/2012 @ 8:22 pmIf I ever hear another demoncrap utter “appearance of impropriety” or “it’s the seriousness of the charge” about a republican again, I am going to knock their f#cking teeth down their throat. This not only has the earmarks of the “appearance of impropriety” IT IS improper as hell on its very face. But noooooooooo, all I hear are the sounds of crickets coming from these
peedoffamerican (d22d0e) — 10/26/2012 @ 8:27 pmso-called patriotsf#cking traitors.aloof dog eater
Colonel Haiku (347142) — 10/26/2012 @ 8:37 pmpetulant and put upon
he’s now screwed teh pooch
‘Speaking truth to power’ um, right:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2012/10/26/instead-exposing-libya-bombshell-abc-hypes-mystery-monkey-and-yawnin
narciso (ee31f1) — 10/26/2012 @ 8:49 pm__________________________________________
The following has been cited above, but between it (ie, Petraeus) and all the rest (ie, Hillary, etc), the debacle of Benghazi is taking on the qualities of bad fiction. It’s becoming, or has become, a parody of Hillary’s ad in 2008 about the ringing phone late at night.
^ This is sort of an international variation of Obama’s idiotic, foolish response back in 2009 to cops in Cambridge, Massachusetts getting into a tussle back with black activist Henry Louis Gates and, more recently, Obama’s-son-if-he-had-a-son, Trayvon Martin.
Lousy, poor judgment is a hallmark of people like Obama (ie, of leftists), and he’s living up to that reputation, in full, shining glory.
Mark (66bba6) — 10/26/2012 @ 9:03 pmPlease Lord, deliver us from this person who presently sits in the Oval Office.
Elephant Stone (65d289) — 10/26/2012 @ 9:04 pmYou’re getting as bad as Sammy, Kevin. Seriously. I’d suggest you go back and read what I wrote, but if you can’t tell the difference between eyewitness reports and a videotape collected by an asset the capabilities of which we don’t want to reveal then nothing can help you.
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/26/2012 @ 9:58 pmWell we can declassify the embassy tapes, which disprove any notion of a riot,
narciso (ee31f1) — 10/26/2012 @ 10:01 pmFor Kevin M.’s benefit just in case; what I wrote earlier. With added emphasis:
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/26/2012 @ 10:06 pmnarciso, we don’t need to declassify anything. Earlier I provided a list of DoS publications. I briefly perused them because I was certain they had to have similar guidance as to what to report and how that I received from DoD and the DoN. Sure enough:
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 12 – Diplomatic Security
There was no protest because had their been they whoever was acting as Post Security Officer (PSO) would have reported it.
It’s that simple. That would have been included in the unclassified document dump DoS passed to the House, which they later released and posted online, along with the unclassified reports of the actual assault.
But it wasn’t. Because it doesn’t exist. There was no such report of an actual demonstration because there was no actual demonstration.
You don’t rely on “sooper sekrit intel,” as Sammy is for some reason convinced, to keep the chain of command informed about events happening just out the gate or just outside the fence of US facilities that may endanger life or security.
Especially after what happened earlier in the day in Cairo.
It is not an intelligence issue. It’s an operational issue. And there’s nothing classified about what’s happening in the street outside the gate or fence of an overt US facility on foreign soil.
Again, the evidence that the claim this assault grew out of some spontaneous demonstration was a complete lie from the start is overwhelming.
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/26/2012 @ 10:19 pmJust to make things as crystal clear as possible, had their been a demonstration outside the consulate the PSO would have notified Charlene Lamb. She’s the Deputy Assistant Secretary (DS) for International Programs (IP) in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security at the Department of State.
She’s the one who testified before Congress.
Nowhere in her testimony, and nowhere in the timeline of events that the DoS provided to the press during a background briefing, is there any mention of any trouble outside the embassy prior to the attack.
As a matter of fact, during the background briefing senior Diplomatic Security officials responded this way when asked why the Obama administration officials claimed the assault was an outgrowth of a spontaneous demonstration:
Had their been any demonstration on the street prior to the assault, the PSO would have reported it to Washington DC. He would have been required to report it.
He didn’t report it. Because it didn’t happen. And the administration would have known that immediately. If they were especially dense then all doubt would have been removed when the surviving eyewitnesses were debriefed the next morning.
This “spontaneous protest over a ‘hateful anti-Muslim’ YouTube video” lie depends entirely on the Obama administration’s complete ignorance of how things work. Such as the reporting system. Or that since they were so clueless, everyone else is.
That’s why it didn’t fly, and it’s crashing and burning now. There are too many people who are familiar with the various aspects of how things work who know for an absolute certainty they are lying.
Maybe if instead of hanging out with former PLO spokesman Rashid Khalidi, Rev. Wright, unrepentant domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, and all those Marxist professors he sought out, he had gotten to know former members of the US military he’d have figured out this lie just wouldn’t give him cover.
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/26/2012 @ 10:52 pm#170: Hmmm that link worked when I tested it. Here’s the version that Drudge has…
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/26/2012 @ 11:49 pmSenators demand WH declassify Benghazi surveillance video
I note they’ve altered the report to assert that the CIA statement was a denial of the Fox report. Not a hint of any other interpretation on the AP’s part.
“Deceive. Inveigle. Obfuscate.”
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/26/2012 @ 11:52 pm–Chris Carter
175. “Sheer speculation”
You’re projecting once again, daley.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/27/2012 @ 12:00 amYou’re getting as bad as Sammy, Kevin. Seriously. I’d suggest you go back and read what I wrote, but if you can’t tell the difference between eyewitness reports and a videotape collected by an asset the capabilities of which we don’t want to reveal then nothing can help you.
Now did I call you names? If you cannot discuss something without getting personal, it’s time to give it a rest.
How is a surveillance tape an “asset we don’t want to reveal”? I’d be willing to be it isn’t even hi def. Low light, sure, but that’s not exactly cutting edge either, and even if it was, they don’t have it at a consulate they didn’t bother having Marines at.
Now, if it came off of an aircraft and not from a fixed camera at the consulate, you’d have a point, but that’s not what I read in that article.
Then again, it could be it is classified only because we don’t want anyone to know how crappy our consulate surveillance cameras are — capabilities and such.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/27/2012 @ 12:01 amI just hope the attack on the annex is what killed the Seals and not ‘friendly fire’.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/27/2012 @ 12:05 amAnother good reason this should not be classified:
(from the Hill article)
If it were in any way technically sensitive, this would not happen.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/27/2012 @ 12:13 am195. http://vinienco.com/2012/10/18/libya-names-ahmed-abu-khattala-leader-benghazi-massacre/
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/27/2012 @ 12:34 amKevin, I’m not calling you names. But the surveillance tape isn’t the collection asset. It’s the product collected by the asset. We know that the DS agent manning the TOC did not stay there during the entire assault. (Note I’m not saying he abandoned his post; he was clearly prioritizing.) If he wasn’t the one ensuring the people in DC were watching in real time the events in Benghazi, and he couldn’t guarantee that after he left his position to fulfill his other duties, then something else was.
Although it may not be mentioned in that particular report, other press reporting indicates a CIA drone was providing the video feed.
While the video from standard security cameras wouldn’t be classified, that from a drone would be.
That could be BS and the Obama admin is just leaking to the press that there was a CIA drone conducting the surveillance in order to justify the overclassifying the recording.
I am merely pointing out that eyewitness reports taken from individuals who are not operating covertly, unlike videos that must be recorded by some sort of device, are not classified. Most video recordings aren’t classified, either, but if you were trying to cover something up you’d have better luck getting away with it when claiming the video was the product of a collection asset. A collection asset that has capabilities that are classified and releasing the tape would compromise the collection asset by revealing its capabilities.
The Obama admin may be sharp enough to realize they can’t claim what people who don’t have a security clearance witnessed occurring around the consulate that evening is classifed. But they may think they can get away with claiming the video is. And daring Congress to prove it wasn’t recorded by classified platform.
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/27/2012 @ 12:36 amNo, it wouldn’t. They would not be releasing the video to Libyan government functionaries if it were sensitive. But then if that’s the case there’s nothing to prevent them from releasing it to the US public, if it’s so mundane they can release it to unreliable foreign nationals.
That’s the inconsistency I’ve been trying to point out.
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/27/2012 @ 12:40 amWell, one of many inconsistencies I’ve been trying to point out in their tsunami of lies and misdirection.
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/27/2012 @ 12:46 am“No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. ”
I find Petraeus’s use of the word “inaccurate” very interesting, and possibly telling.
Not untrue. Inaccurate, as in: It wasn’t the CIA who told anybody not to help those in need.
MayBee (4901b0) — 10/27/2012 @ 12:48 amNo paper trail.
http://www.therightscoop.com/must-watch-rush-military-caller-says-beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt-obama-knew-about-benghazi-attack-ordered-no-response/
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/27/2012 @ 12:49 amWell, one of many inconsistencies I’ve been trying to point out in their tsunami of lies and misdirection.
There are so many, where do you start. This has gone beyond lying to obfuscation. They are just trying to kick the can to November 7th. But Nixon kicked it much further and it still didn’t help.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/27/2012 @ 1:05 amReal Clear has toggled NC back into the tossup category.
What a friggen joke.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/27/2012 @ 1:06 amMaybee,
I think it means that the General knows how to take an order he doesn’t like, but he’s not going to take a fall for it.
Then again, the CIA has released a lot of stuff already to cover for the administration (such as their assessment that it was all about the video), so it’s getting hard to tell the sides.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/27/2012 @ 1:08 amReal Clear has toggled NC back into the tossup category. Because PPP called it a tie. All these polls and it still is all about turnout, and how the pollsters anticipated it.
Gallup goes to some length to argue that their “likely voter” model looks demographically almost identical to 2008. But after a lot of blah blah blah, they find the following partisan result:
Dem/leans Dem: 2004 = 48; 2008 = 54; 2012 = 46
Rep/leans Rep: 2004 = 48; 2008 = 42; 2012 = 49
In the end, not quite the same at all. And if the demographics are less favorable than 2008 (e.g. fewer under-25)…
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/27/2012 @ 1:19 amKevin @204, there have been a lot of claims about stuff that supposedly came from CIA. Some of it clearly came from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. ODNI isn’t CIA.
When Rice went on TV she said that “intel” had provided her with talking points. As I’ve repeatedly pointed out, intel doesn’t provide talking points. Campaigns do that.
There is no such thing as the “intel community.” As if the “intel community” gets together for sing-alongs. Usually the various agencies who get lumped into that category are at each other’s throats.
It seems to me that Petraeus is saying that while a lot of things may have been claimed by people who aren’t CIA about what CIA said, CIA didn’t say those things.
And as we are learning neither did State. Which despite AMB. Rice’s ignorant assertions is part of intel (DoS’s INR=Bureau of Intelligence and Research).
So who wants to own this s***sandwich? DIA?
It seems Obama has united the various bickering agencies that despite having zero sense of community get lumped together under the heading “intelligence community” into one common cause.
They are all united in being determined to say “it wasn’t us” and they’re willing to leak the info to prove it.
Who says Barack Obama couldn’t bring people together?
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/27/2012 @ 1:37 amThe mistake Obama made was to leave anyone alive at the annex in Benghazi. The last action should have been a strike on the compound. Now he has the problem of live witnesses stepping forward and telling the truth. His cover up would have worked. He lacked courage to kill everyone. But then we all know that.
Susan Harms (d3d0cd) — 10/27/2012 @ 5:23 amAnyone knows that when you have an incident, you try to learn why it happened, look for root cause. Obama is not looking for WHY we did not save our people , he is looking for who to blame. He is not a leader. SOrry to restate the obvious.
Susan Harms (d3d0cd) — 10/27/2012 @ 5:26 amPanetta and all the rest of them go into full denial/CYA mode. Disgusting.
Comment by Colonel Haiku — 10/26/2012 @ 3:05 pm
— Seems that Panetta’s argument is “Well, maybe we could’ve been looking . . . but we weren’t, so never mind.”
Icy (1c9801) — 10/27/2012 @ 6:52 amLove’s comment at #135 reveals all you ever need to know about him. Lying in service to the meme is like breathing for these people.
Icy (1c9801) — 10/27/2012 @ 6:55 amLake pointed this out at least three weeks ago, they took a single phrase from one of the intercepts, between AQIM and Ansar Al Sharia, to estabish that talking point. I maintain that Khattalah doesn’t have the clout to pull off this type of operation, but he might be
narciso (ee31f1) — 10/27/2012 @ 7:01 aman outlier like Salameh in the first WTC attack,
There will be Days of Reckoning. Tuesday, November 6, 2012 will probably be the first.
Colonel Haiku (9c8cb0) — 10/27/2012 @ 7:02 amThis is the piece I was referring to;
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/01/the-intel-behind-obama-s-libya-line.html
narciso (ee31f1) — 10/27/2012 @ 7:16 amNew O campaign reality jingle,
Al Qaeda is alive and Ambassador Stevens is dead.
jeff (ad7c70) — 10/27/2012 @ 10:16 amThese are Ambassador’s of Mine Who Died—Zippy and the Acolytes
Apologies to The Jim Carroll Band!
Media Mutters (721840) — 10/27/2012 @ 11:14 amMayBee,
My understanding is the so-called “Petraeus statement” is a tweet by Jake Tapper of something a CIA spokesperson told him:
Even the Weedly Standard qualified this as “presumably at the direction of CIA director David Petraeus.” However, to my knowledge, the only thing Petraeus said about Benghazi was this report about what he told a Congressional committee in a mid-September closed-door briefing:
Furthermore, with regard to the Tapper tweet, I don’t think it’s clear what the CIA spokesperson is referring to. Maybe it is a response to the reports that the Americans in Benghazi asked for help three times but were turned down. Or maybe it’s a response to the earlier reports that the Americans were told to “stand down” when they sought permission to go help the Ambassador. It’s too nebulous to say for sure.
Finally, at this point with this Administration, I’m not putting any credence in a reporter’s tweet of what someone told him. Has Petraeus gone back to Congress and clarified the record? Has he issued a statement or given a speech clarifying what happened? I can’t find either one at the CIA website or elsewhere.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/27/2012 @ 11:50 amH/T narciso re: Petraeus’ mid-September Congressional briefing.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/27/2012 @ 11:51 amWhuch btw, I first heard of from Sammy, the question still arises what did they task the
narciso (ee31f1) — 10/27/2012 @ 11:59 amcontingent to do,
MayBee,
I need to correct my earlier comment. The AP also reported the CIA spokesperson’s statement. Here is what the Washington Post version said:
Based on this, it sounds like the CIA was specifically denying that it told its personnel to “Stand Down.” But I still think it’s not clear what was intended or if it’s the final word. It certainly doesn’t tell me that Petraeus is standing up to Obama.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/27/2012 @ 12:34 pmDRJ, in general if an official spokesperson says something and keeps their job then they are speaking at the direction of whomever they are working for.
If US embassy Cairo blames a video for violence, then it is speaking on behalf of the President. If not, then the President must fire those responsible. Starting with the ambassador, whom he personally selected to be his personal representative to Egypt.
If Susan Rice goes on five Sunday talking head shows to assert that what happened in Benghazi devolved out of a spontaneous protest then that is coming from the President. If not, then that person can not keep her job. Because again the ambassador to the UN is the President’s personal envoy.
When Jay Carney or a CIA spokesperson talks, they aren’t expressing their personal views. If they go rogue and start doing so then they lose their jobs.
That’s just leadership 101.
The fact that none of these people have lost their jobs speaks volumes about Obama.
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/27/2012 @ 12:36 pmThat’s how I read it too.
It remains to be seen what he meant or what the truth is about who failed to do the right thing or who decided to cover the truth up. But this is the Obama administration’s mess. I hope everyone keeps that in mind as we see the blame game unfold. Every finger is pointed at someone in the Obama administration, period.
Dustin (73fead) — 10/27/2012 @ 12:45 pmThe staff officer who made the tweet, before the protest, was reassigned to DC,
narciso (ee31f1) — 10/27/2012 @ 12:52 pmKevin @204, there have been a lot of claims about stuff that supposedly came from CIA. Some of it clearly came from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. ODNI isn’t CIA.
I do know the difference between Clapper’s and Pertaeus’ shops, but the reports said “CIA” and I (silly me) took them at their word. Good point.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/27/2012 @ 1:03 pm@206: “Intel community” is what people say when they cannot use more exact terms. If someone says that they are doing something for, say, the CIA, they are either lying or about to be in trouble.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/27/2012 @ 1:07 pmToday the WH gave seemingly the same disclaimer for its own command as the CIA yesterday.
Ace: “Hey DoD…the music is slowing down and you don’t have a chair.”
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/27/2012 @ 1:32 pmThe WH is flatly denying that the president denied assistance in Benghazi,
“Neither the president nor anyone in the White House denied any requests for assistance in Benghazi,” National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor told Yahoo News by email.
Dana (292dcf) — 10/27/2012 @ 2:01 pmVietor also said that William Kristol of Weekly Standard was wrong with his claim he doubted Panetta’s explanation and said the fault must lie with Obama himself. “Would the secretary of defense make such a decision on his own? No,” Kristol wrote. “It would have been a presidential decision.”
Leadership? No one in the Obama admin knows the meaning of the word.
SPQR (56beb1) — 10/27/2012 @ 2:11 pmDana, the White House and all of their minions also flatly stated for two friggin weeks that it was because of a spontaneous uprising to a film. One that nobody knew about until the State Dept. came out and apologized for BEFORE any riots had taken place. I know that you don’t believe them, I am not being snarky. I guess they think that I should believe that they are now being truthful when they have lied their asses off for the entirety of Obeyme’s f@cked up administration.
peedoffamerican (d22d0e) — 10/27/2012 @ 2:14 pmTheir stories have more twists and turns than a pretzel made by a guy with Parkinson’s. I am allowed, was diagnosed with Parkinsons in February. But would probably make the comment even if I didn’t cause I hate this PC crap that some like Leviticus just seem to drool over.
peedoffamerican (d22d0e) — 10/27/2012 @ 2:27 pmIf President Obama did not refuse help (per the WH quote at #226), then what would the other option be upon being asked for assistance: To give help.
So, if the president gave the order to provide assistance, how is this done – verbally or in writing?
If in writing, wouldn’t there be a protocol that would have him signing some sort of order?
And if so, would there not then be some sort of paper trail on hand to verify this with?
Of course, this then begs the question: If the President did make the order to provide assistance, why wasn’t it given?
We’re going full circle here and I’m feeling like it’s entirely intentional.
Dana (292dcf) — 10/27/2012 @ 2:27 pmThey didn’t deny requests for aid, they (carefully?) just did not hear them.
htom (412a17) — 10/27/2012 @ 2:30 pm“Neither the president nor anyone in the White House denied any requests for assistance in Benghazi,” National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor told Yahoo News by email.
Very possibly, htom. They just didn’t *hear* it, or perhaps the request did not reach the president but was intercepted and responded to by another. Valerie Jarrett?
Circle game.
Dana (292dcf) — 10/27/2012 @ 2:37 pmValerie Jarrett?Oops, she would be WH…
Dana (292dcf) — 10/27/2012 @ 2:38 pmhtom they probably stuck their fingers in their ears and went, “Nananananan, nananananana, I can’t hear you!”
peedoffamerican (d22d0e) — 10/27/2012 @ 2:38 pmThere is no good reason to believe anything the current administration says about the Benghazi attack. They have shown since 9/11/2012 that they have failed to be forthright about the situation. Asking us to wait until after the election for the report of what happened is a red flag that they screwed up royaly. Their entire response has been shot through with lies.
Obama must be voted out on November 6th. He is totally incompetent.
Bill M (2f7437) — 10/27/2012 @ 2:40 pm==Neither the president nor anyone in the White House denied any requests for assistance in Benghazi,” National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor told Yahoo News by email==
Does it count as “in the White House” if the person was in a car, or standing outside in the rose garden or in Michelle’s veggie patch, or having cocktails in Georgetown? Just asking. Because you know it depends on what the meaning of “is” is.
elissa (d7578c) — 10/27/2012 @ 2:47 pmI’m sure after this interview President Prom Queen will limit his press availabilities to Rolling Stone, Nickelodeon, The View, Jimmy Kimmel Live, and other sycophantic venues. But should a reporter get another crack at asking King Putt a serious question I’ve got one to suggest.
“Sir, your administration has said that neither you or anyone else in the WH denied any requests for assistance to the men on the ground in Benghazi. So, who is the Commander in Chief in your administration who did?”
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/27/2012 @ 2:48 pmThat’s going to leave a mark.
Dustin (73fead) — 10/27/2012 @ 2:52 pmThe WH is flat-out denying any refusal for help.
CIA & Petraus is flat-out denying any refusal for help.
DOD & Panetta say they didn’t have adequate intel to put American forces at risk.
Dana (292dcf) — 10/27/2012 @ 2:52 pmAn aggregation from Powerline:
Says Doherty came with seven other civilians from Tripoli as the only US reinforcements.
That Woods and Doherty were killed in mortar attack on annex(following return from consulate with Smith’s body) and homing in on Wood’s laser.
Panetta wearing the bullseye of the hour as Dog lead from behind.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/27/2012 @ 2:56 pmLink:
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/27/2012 @ 2:57 pmhttp://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/10/benghazi-a-reader-assesses-the-evidence.php
236. Have to admit, despite being a SE specializing in code debugging the last decade picking apart syntax at this level of detail is not within my normal scope.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/27/2012 @ 3:00 pmSince General Ham, Africom, and Rear Admiral Charles M Gaouette have been relieved of their duties, is it not time to stampede d.c.?
mg (31009b) — 10/27/2012 @ 3:03 pm243. It’s time.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/27/2012 @ 3:06 pmSeriously, who’s the CinC who over-rules President Tiger Beat?
It’s going to be tough for Mr. Gusty Call (I can’t look at him without thinking of Queen and Bohemian Rhapsody, “any way the wind blows doesn’t really matter to me,” but mostly I just look at him and think “queen”) to claim personal credit for killing bin Laden when this episode demonstrates he can’t demand a range of options, choose one, and then pull the trigger.
Nope. He just gives “very clear directives” that his subordinates just flat disobey. Then he says “ok” and gets his beauty sleep for his big Las Vegas adventure.
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/27/2012 @ 3:09 pmJust kidding. Who isn’t the CinC who overrules President Kardashian.
Here’s a blast from the past. Remember that memo that then-CIA Director Leon Panetta wrote designating ADM McRaven the fall-guy if the bin Laden raid failed?
Just saying, there’s a pattern here. The President claims to give a “clear directive:”
Which is really just pablum. (Who as President wouldn’t want to “make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to?” That this joker would not only have to say it but imagine it’s profound and makes him look bold and decisive is beyond idiocy)
Then he turns to Panetta and begs “Please, please, please don’t make me have to decide. You do it, then let me claim the credit if it turns out well. And give me someone to blame if it falls to s***.”
Panetta always comes through on the last point:
The first part is of course complete bulls***. It’s just the standard Obama admin excuse that they didn’t have “actionable intelligence” when by definition intelligence is actionable. However no amount of intelligence can make someone act when they are primarily thinking of opinion polls.
But I would say that General Carter Ham is lunch meat.
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/27/2012 @ 3:40 pmGen. Ham was told to step down within 30 seconds of disobeying orders not to rescue the left behind heroes. 2nd in command must be a democrat.
mg (31009b) — 10/27/2012 @ 3:47 pm246. I think you’re on target here. Panetta was given waffle orders and some insurmountable Everest required prior to military action was not topped.
Since Panetta made the OBL call, he was dead meat if he overstepped his position again.
The fact that they were talking with Morsi about Abdel-Rahman and Morsi’s forces led the raid to kidnap Stevens was Morsi’s initiative, like his attacks in the Sinai.
Still I think the possibility of conspiracy to treason should be pursued.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/27/2012 @ 3:52 pm246. “you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on; without having some real-time information about what’s taking place”
Right. That’s a pretty thin bench the Dhimmis are going to have going forward. Everyone in this episode will be a pariah.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/27/2012 @ 4:00 pmmg, Ham hasn’t been relieved. His relief has been named, yes.
But as of today he’s still Commander, United States Africa Command.
He was the subject of one of their press releases just three days ago:
General Ham Urges Cadets to Manage Change, Stay with Bedrock Values
Of course, if anyone believes the commander of AFRICOM was in DC just to speak to an ROTC association I’ve got a bridge to sell them.
The name of the storm about to hit DC does begin with an “S” but it ain’t “Sandy.”
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/27/2012 @ 4:02 pmRe: mg’s comments at #s 243 & 247, the following excerpt is by Mike Johnson from The American Thinker
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/10/has_general_ham_been_fired.html#ixzz2AXilQSmC
ropelight (dfddf0) — 10/27/2012 @ 4:05 pmMaybe general ham was told not to help so he was like ok cool we won’t help but then he got romnesia and forgot about the whole not helping thing and he started to put together a team to help and people said hey there you need to go home til you feel better so he did
happyfeet (6a0a22) — 10/27/2012 @ 4:23 pmWhat about Rear Admiral Gaouette being told to step down because of inappropriate judgement? Rumor, I doubt it.
mg (31009b) — 10/27/2012 @ 4:48 pmForget that proverbial 3AM phone call, President Zero doesn’t even take calls at 3PM, nor even at 10:25AM.
Elephant Stone (65d289) — 10/27/2012 @ 4:49 pmPanetta tells us what he thinks he knows of leadership and going into harm’s way:
What actual leaders have to say about leadership and going into harm’s way:
Sir Winston Churchill, November 3, 1940
Marine Corps Generalship, Chapter 11, National Defense University Press, Washington, D.C. 2009
General George S. Patton, various quotes during WWII
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/27/2012 @ 4:51 pmIf I were General Ham or Rear Admiral Gaouette I would look out for the bus of barry.
mg (31009b) — 10/27/2012 @ 4:59 pmStay safe.
I think the muzlems know our military doesn’t believe in the cic. Not a healthy picture.
mg (31009b) — 10/27/2012 @ 5:06 pmDrew M doesn’t think that pertains to Libya.
I have no idea about either of these officers (I think Drew makes a lot of sense in dismissing the claims about Gaouette), but something very disturbing seems to have occurred with the lack of response and the apparent lack of an airstrike when the man painting a target must have thought one was possible (because he gave his position and ultimately his life by painting the mortar position).
We also need to be careful before jumping on every angle. Some of this stuff is wrong. Sammy might say even deliberately so.
Dustin (73fead) — 10/27/2012 @ 5:13 pmI think teh Prez missed his true calling. He shoulda been a Greyhound Bus driver.
Colonel Haiku (a74426) — 10/27/2012 @ 5:30 pmSammy might say even deliberately so.
At the risk of sounding like Sammy, I’d say so, too. Nothing makes a cover-up look good than provably false accusations.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/27/2012 @ 5:31 pmI am less convinced that the Ham rumors are false, though.
It seems only natural that he would indeed want to help. I hope he lets us know the truth soon.
Dustin (73fead) — 10/27/2012 @ 5:33 pmNo, that concerns Iran, where General Mattis, has been increasingly stonewalled.
This starts to look like Mogadishu;
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2012/10/27/ap-on-benghazi-attack-150-gunmen-involved-arrived-in-ansar-al-sharia-trucks/
narciso (ee31f1) — 10/27/2012 @ 5:35 pmWell said.
Supposing Obama knows he blew this and that he will lose a lot of votes if that becomes clear, what better response than muddying the waters?
I guess one problem I have is that after the IG firing, Fast and Furious, and a dozen other episodes, I can actually see a General being relieved of command for trying to rescue Americans.
But we really don’t know that at this point. We just know we can’t trust our President.
Dustin (73fead) — 10/27/2012 @ 5:35 pmI believe it was Napoleon who said that no general could go wrong by marching toward the sound of guns.
This – you don’t put forces into action when you don’t know what’s going on crap, Napoleon never heard of it. Wellington never heard of it. Pershing never heard of it. Patton would spit on it. Teddy Roosevelt? Ha.
SPQR (768505) — 10/27/2012 @ 5:51 pmIt’s worse than that; we know we can trust 0 to screw it up and then lie about having done so.
htom (412a17) — 10/27/2012 @ 5:53 pm“It is better to beg forgiveness than to ask permission.” — R.A. Grace Hooper
htom (412a17) — 10/27/2012 @ 6:00 pmIt’s sad to say it and no comfort to the families, but through their unfortunate and very possibly preventable deaths, Ambassador Stevens, Tyrone Woods, Sean Smith and Glen Doherty may play the same role in keeping Barack Obama from a second term as Mary Jo Kopechne’s death forever kept Ted Kennedy out of the White House. Character in their presidents– it still matters a whole lot to Americans, I think.
elissa (d7578c) — 10/27/2012 @ 6:09 pmThe record of their bravery and perseverance, was kept from us, elissa, so that Obama could use them as props,
narciso (ee31f1) — 10/27/2012 @ 6:11 pmSandy is no moon landing but the press seems very willing to ride out the storm, til after election day, anyway. IYKWIM.
SarahW (b0e533) — 10/27/2012 @ 6:11 pmI wanted to know what the hell happened Sep 12. I knew something was BEYOND up when there was coordinated misdirection among my lib Journo pals.
SarahW (b0e533) — 10/27/2012 @ 6:15 pmThey were just OUTRAGED…at Mitt Romney. Dead ambassadors dragged through the street, not so much.
SarahW (b0e533) — 10/27/2012 @ 6:17 pmSPQR,
Just my opinion but I think Obama and the Democratic leaders are so afraid of military deaths that they cringe at any military action. After the last 10+ years, a lot of Americans probably feel the same way. The problem in this case is that American lives were at stake.
I don’t think the American public’s reluctance to commit troops to battle means we are willing to let Americans serving in foreign lands die. Either the Obama Administration doesn’t grasp that fact or it’s willing to let Americans die. Or both.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/27/2012 @ 6:17 pmDRJ, the American people admire competent action. They don’t admire f’ups like Obama.
SPQR (768505) — 10/27/2012 @ 6:21 pmWife told me that Judge Pirro (sp?) just had some retired military folks on, one with a GOOD contact who told him that 0bama watched the livestream feed in the “situation room” and he was the guy who gave the thumbs down on military action to save our people.
Colonel Haiku (a74426) — 10/27/2012 @ 6:33 pmon her FNS show…
Colonel Haiku (a74426) — 10/27/2012 @ 6:34 pmor is it FNC?
Colonel Haiku (a74426) — 10/27/2012 @ 6:34 pmOT–Marco Rubio’s 12 year old daughter was injured in an auto accident today. He has left the Romney campaign tour afer being intercepted en route to a campaign stop by a state police cruiser. Report says she’s “in stable condition” but she was airlifted to a hospital so it must be kind of serious. Prayers, please.
elissa (d7578c) — 10/27/2012 @ 6:37 pmThe Miami Herald interviewed a family spokesman who said Amanda Rubio had a concussion but she’s doing better. Of course, a concussion is no small matter but it sounds like she’s okay.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/27/2012 @ 6:55 pmCol Haiku,
The Fox News report that broke this story said the denial was issued by the “CIA chain of command,” but the CIA’s response was not convincing: “No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need …” That leaves a lot of wiggle room, plus Fox News stands by its story.
Now, today, the White House also denied it was responsible:
At this point, I won’t believe anything the Obama Administration or its agencies say about this story unless it’s under oath and corroborated.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/27/2012 @ 7:11 pmExactly, they don’t say how they handled the crisis, we know there was some action from the Tripoli station, but now response from above that level, to branch or division chief
narciso (ee31f1) — 10/27/2012 @ 7:17 pmComment by SPQR — 10/27/2012 @ 5:51 pm
Over at Blackfive one of their RangerUp tee shirts has the logo “I run towards gunfire”
I think it is premature to focus too much on conjecture about why Benghazi happened. I doubt it had to do with violating Libyan air space or worry about US casualties. We violated Pakistan’s air space against their wishes, it sounds like the people officially in charge of Libya would have been happy for the overhead assist.
A group of 8 Americans arrived with pro-US Libyan forces, why not send a bigger more equipped group? Why not let whatever it was in the air fire at what the laser was targeting?
Why was the ambassador there with virtually no security detail in the first place? The fact that they were asking for more security and not getting it suggests that Stevens wasn’t 100% in on the plan.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/27/2012 @ 7:54 pmhttp://scottoncapecod.wordpress.com/2012/10/25/navy-seals-always/
narciso (ee31f1) — 10/27/2012 @ 8:04 pmTrying to avoid being cocksure,
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/331828/two-polls-have-chicago-terrified-josh-jordan
..having some trouble.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/27/2012 @ 8:05 pmRasmussen has WI all tied with 2% undecided, or with 70% voting about 50K.
Willard’s margin of victory, IMHO. MN prolly too close to call, under 10K.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/27/2012 @ 8:21 pmthanks narciso.
mg (31009b) — 10/27/2012 @ 8:43 pmgary- Mn. has too damn many college towns to be for R@R.
Rural Mn. is 75% conservative, don’t you think.
286. Yes, lets hope no prospect of a job and $100K of indentured servitude concentrates some minds.
The story will be who shows up to vote.
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/021742.html#comments
Not having your sh*t in one pile will steer a bunch from voting without a party afterwards.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/27/2012 @ 8:51 pmDRJ, narciso, we don’t know for a fact that there was no response from a higher level. As you mentioned there was small force sent from Tripoli.
But only a small fraction of the men fighting at the Benghazi consulate belonged to DoS. Most were apparently CIA or CIA contractors.
So who’s to say what department or agency the men in that relief force were working for? It may be that Petraeus did react quickly, as his spokesperson said. I’d hazard a guess that he knows quite a bit more about generalship than Panetta, especially that a commander only has a brief window, what Patton called the “golden moment,” to take initiative.
I’ve been rereading the timeline the DoS Diplomatic Security officials provided in that press briefing back on October 9th. As always, when you reread stuff certain things jump out, some that are so obvious I think I should have mentioned them before but for some reason didn’t.
I found this paragraph interesting:
So much of that briefing provided by DoS confirms this Fox news report. And puts the lie to Panetta’s lame and false excuses.
First, it confirms the guy at the TOC was calling DC for help. There’s no way the WH situation room, DoS’s operations center, the Pentagon’s NMCC, and CIA’s were not receiving those requests.
Also, if he’s been on the phone the entire time then these command and control centers would have been asking him to provide information. Call it what you will; essential elements of information (EEIs) to answer the commander’s intelligence requirements (CIR) or information requirements (IRs) to meet priority intelligence requirements (PIR). But he would have been filling them in on the situation.
So in addition to the CIA drone overhead they have a guy on the ground with eyes on the situation, describing exactly what a commander would need in order to react to the situation.
So Panetta’s claim that”you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on” and that they didn’t have that information is, of course, the most obvious of bullshit and has been from the start. They knew exactly what was going on in and around that compound. Certainly better than commanders in past conflicts. On top of that they would have had plenty of intel they could have just pulled off the shelf. I am 100% confident the USN has a continuously updated contingency plan, for instance, to support a noncombatant evacuation operation.
Also that charter aircraft the Tripoli relief force used was, I’ve read in other press reports, a helo. Tripoli to Benghazi is 405 air miles. Sigonella Sicily to Benghazi is approx. 436 air miles (approx because I had to enter Siracusa Sicily into the on-line distance calculator as Sigonella wasn’t an option). Maybe Obama doesn’t have the math skills to understand, but you can get a jet to Benghazi from Sicily faster than you can get a helo there from Tripoli.
They could have had air support fast enough to save lives, had someone called it in.
Aircraft to Benghazi. Boots on the ground. These were really Panetta’s only options as well. He claims you can’t do that without perfect intel. Yet somebody got them both there without it.
Including, I might add, the Libyan government. The agent, recall, was calling Libyan authorities. And they ordered the 17th of February to send in a relief force as well.
It’s only because Panetta wasn’t in charge of the Libyan decision-making, or arguing with whoever ordered in the American team from Tripoli, that only 4 Americans were killed. The rest saved.
There were quite a lot of them, as they had to fly out the survivors as well as the Tripoli relief force in two trips.
I’m kind of at a loss to understand how Panetta can claim that he didn’t have enough intel to know he could have gotten aircraft in and out of Benghazi airspace if some charter pilot is making multiple round trips. Or at least how he can imagine anyone will believe him.
As an aside, I also can’t understand how anyone will believe the Preezy when he tries lay the blame for not reacting on DoD. Interestingly, that 5:00p.m. meeting at he had in the oval orifice was attended by Biden and Panetta.
So he has DoD meet with him? And doesn’t call in DoS and CIA, both of which are also current members of his NSC? And the only two members who actually have personnel at risk in the situation?
One might argue that they had to be at their respective command centers precisely because of that, but then Panetta should have been at the NMCC if that were the case. Not disengaging and meeting with the President.
One wonders if those three weren’t already devising the cover-up, and excluding the others who had dogs in that fight precisely for that reason. It does speak volumes that King Putt hasn’t sent out Hillary! and Petraeus to be his public surrogates.
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/27/2012 @ 9:02 pmNewest Minnesota Poll has 0 53, R45 — which means that the vote total might be 0 48, R 50 , the traditional ten point adjustment between that poll and reality. D..m, I may end up voting for Romney. (Usually even after the ten point adjustment, the Republican is hopelessly behind; when we lived in Minneapolis it was a great year in our precinct if the Republican got more votes than the Socialist or the Democrats didn’t get 70%.)
htom (412a17) — 10/27/2012 @ 9:03 pmAt this point, I won’t believe anything the Obama Administration or its agencies say about this story unless it’s under oath and corroborated.
Comment by DRJ
Yes… and even then there’s some doubt, DRJ.
Colonel Haiku (de1a86) — 10/27/2012 @ 9:03 pmfrom narciso’s link above:
Not knowing exactly what was taking place, the two SEALs set up a defensive perimeter. Unfortunately Ambassador Stevens was already gravely injured, and Foreign Service officer, Sean Smith, was dead. However, due to their quick action and suppressive fire, twenty administrative personnel in the embassy were able to escape to safety. Eventually, these two courageous men were overwhelmed by the sheer numbers brought against them, an enemy force numbering between 100 to 200 attackers which came in two waves. But the stunning part of the story is that Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty killed 60 of the attacking force. Once the compound was overrun, the attackers were incensed to discover that just two men had inflicted so much death and destruction.
As it became apparent to these selfless heroes, they were definitely going to lose their lives unless some reinforcements showed up in a hurry. As we know now, that was not to be. I’m fairly certain they knew they were going to die in this gun fight, but not before they took a whole lot of bad guys with them!
I am also incensed. Why are we learning these details from a blog instead of someone high in the government? Why are these SEALs not receiving media attention and acclaim? Damn!
elissa (f9d1f1) — 10/27/2012 @ 9:04 pmAlso a bit more on Rubio’s daughter. She was in a golf cart which was hit by a car. She’s in pediatric intensive care with a concussion and in fair condition.
elissa (f9d1f1) — 10/27/2012 @ 9:07 pmMD in Philly @282:
An excellent point, Doc. Pakistan’s a nuclear power. And they’re livid over the drone strikes. When ADM Mullen was still CJCS he met with his counterpart who demanded to know how after hundreds of drone strikes the Obama admin still claimed to be working on its “top twenty” list of targets.
Yet despite their anger we continue.
And now the Obama admin wants us to believe we had to avoid hurting the feelings of a Libyan government that doesn’t even have the clout to disarm the militias that control Benghazi.
So much of this line of bull coming from the Obama admin reeks enough of dishonesty, but they have to toss on a large dose of stupidity for good measure.
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/27/2012 @ 9:12 pmAnother more likely possibility is that assets like the AC-130 Spectre would be more susceptible to those MANPADS, that’s why exfil by air, was considered unlikely,
narciso (ee31f1) — 10/27/2012 @ 9:17 pmWhat these two men did in Benghazi, elissa, reminds me of what Randy Shughart and Gary Gordon did in Mogadishu.
There will be no MoHs for Doherty or Woods. No ships named for them. For one, they weren’t SEALs any more. Although clearly just as with Marines there’s no such thing as an ex-SEAL.
The other thing is that what these two valiant men did stands in sharp contrast to what the craven, miserable creatures in the chain of command did. They’d just embarrass themselves if they honor Doherty and Woods, so they won’t.
But think about it; if just two SEALs inflicted that much damage on the attackers imagine what would have happened if Panetta had the testicular fortitude to order in even just 10 more like them (and I’m including the Army SPECOPs types and Marine FAST platoon members in that group) in a timely manner.
The Obama admin constantly and repeatedly insult the armed forces. As Obumble did when he compared surface ships (and consequently the Sailors who crew them) to horses and bayonets. Really? Aegis destroyers and cruisers that are the key component in our missile defenses are obsolete?
The guys who Panetta claims he didn’t have enough intel to risk sending into harms way would have volunteered if asked. Like Doherty and Woods, if they were anywhere nearby Panetta couldn’t have ordered them not to go.
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/27/2012 @ 9:35 pmPresident Obama vowed Saturday to hold the right people accountable if it’s found that there was breakdown in communications within the intelligence community ahead of last month’s attack in Benghazi.
“What my attitude on this is is if we find out there was a big breakdown and somebody didn’t do their job, they’ll be held accountable,” he said in an interview with “Morning Joe” hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski conducted in Nashua, N.H., according to a report on MSNBC.com.
“Ultimately as commander-in-chief I am responsible and I don’t shy away from that responsibility,” he added.
And so it goes.
Dana (292dcf) — 10/27/2012 @ 9:36 pmOf course the WAPO coverage described Amanda Rubio’s head injury as a result of a “golf cart collision in a gated community.”
elissa (f9d1f1) — 10/27/2012 @ 9:40 pmPresident Big Bird should watch Sesame Street; maybe they might have taught him the meaning of the word “responsibility.” It doesn’t mean “blame the underlings.”
You can delegate authority. But not responsibility. Responsibility means you are accountable; when the people below you screw up, as a leader you’re the one who is accountable.
This is why it’s difficult to be a leader. You must delegate authority because you simply don’t have time to make all the decisions and follow through. But if you put somebody in that position of making decisions on your behalf, it’s your fault.
That’s how it works in the service. Unfortunately in politics “I take responsibility” really means “I’m sure I can find a scapegoat.”
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/27/2012 @ 9:51 pmSteve57 – good leaders delegate authority and acknowledge keeping the responsibility … bad leaders keep the authority and delegate the responsibility …
Alasdair (2cd241) — 10/27/2012 @ 10:16 pmnarciso @283 – Unless new info has emerged, that scottoncapecod blog has details which differ from prior accounts. My understanding is that Woods and Doherty made it safely back to the annex after their rescue trip and died on the roof of the annex from mortar fire. Your link seems to claim they died at the consulate. The link also claims they went from the annex to the consulate unarmed and picked up weapons from fleeing Libyan guards. This again is a new twist. My understanding was the the few Libyan consulate guards were unarmed, why, who knows.
I’m not trying to cast any doubts on the heroism of Doherty and Woods, just pointing out that your link is a new narrative in some respects.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/27/2012 @ 10:22 pm“bad leaders keep the authority and delegate the responsibility”
Alasdair – I worked for a boss who was like that. It was a nightmare.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/27/2012 @ 10:24 pmThe guards had effectively bailed, because they were told to stand down, some may have let the Ansar Al Sharia, into the compound, I imagine they were armed, but it’s doubtful they had any where near the requisite firepower,
narciso (ee31f1) — 10/27/2012 @ 10:31 pmI would humbly suggest that line of reasoning is somewhat undermined by the fact that’s exactly what happened; the personnel were extracted by air.
But then, I at least was talking about providing close air support. Or inserting a reaction force (which someone managed to do from Tripoli, I might add).
If the threat was deemed too high to send an AC-130 into the airspace over Benghazi there are other aircraft more suited to the task. F/A-18s, F-16s, F-15s, and A-10s pop immediately to mind. If you’ve ever watched footage of them operating over the battlefields of Iraq or A-stan, maneuvering and pumping out chaff like there’s no tomorrow, then I’m sure you’ll agree they always assume somebody’s got a MANPAD.
If you look around the Med I believe any number of these aircraft would have been available in short order.
Also consider:
ABC News Political Punch: Email Shows State Department Rejecting Request of Security Team at US Embassy in Libya
DoS wasn’t using 1930s vintage DC-3 because they’re nostalgia buffs. In places like Africa they blend in. It doesn’t scream “Ewe Ess of Aaay!”
There are other aircraft that don’t look out of place at a third world airfield, if you want to insert or extract people without attracting undue attention. They are in the inventory.
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/27/2012 @ 10:38 pmdaley–Not that Glenn’s infallible, but Instapundit linked this scottoncapecod piece, too, and he’s usually pretty careful. Lots of newish narratives seem to be out in play right now, depending on who’s trying to make what point or cover what ass. Maybe someone somewhere in the gubment is sending up still another new trial balloon to try to mess up somebody else.
One of the many things I’d still like to know: there are rumored survivors. What I’ve not seen anywhere-yet- is who they are. Have I missed this? American? Military? Contractors? Libyan staffers? I should think their eyewitness accounts are valuable? Is this maybe some of what we are seeing here I wonder?
elissa (f9d1f1) — 10/27/2012 @ 10:43 pmelissa, there weren’t rumored survivors. There were reported survivors. Again from the DoS press briefing:
Clearly the reaction force from Tripoli brought back more than they left with. Survivors.
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/27/2012 @ 10:50 pmOK Steve–rumored reported, whatever. My question is who were they? And what did they see?
elissa (f9d1f1) — 10/27/2012 @ 10:55 pmI didn’t mean to imply that your questions aren’t good questions or be in any way dismissive, elissa. I would have to say, when you ask about who exactly survived, all of the above.
Moreover I’d suggest that there are plenty of Benghazi residents unaffiliated with the consulate, militias, etc., who could provide witness statements concerning the attacks. Considering, you know, it was essentially just a street brawl.
I’m stunned, STUNNED, I tell you, to find the US MFM is uninterested in pursuing any obvious leads.
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/27/2012 @ 10:57 pmDoS wasn’t using 1930s vintage DC-3 because they’re nostalgia buffs. In places like Africa they blend in. It doesn’t scream “Ewe Ess of Aaay!”
They also do not need 21st century runways, due to their very low landing airspeed.
nk (875f57) — 10/27/2012 @ 11:06 pmDo the Marines still have the Harrier?
nk (875f57) — 10/27/2012 @ 11:08 pmnk @308, there are lots of later STOL aircraft that can operate out of short unimproved fields. I wouldn’t want to bore people with the list. The DC-3 has nothing on them in that regard, plus they are harder to maintain.
What they do better than most modern aircraft is blend in. That is there single biggest advantage.
nk@309, until the F-35B reaches Full Operational Capability the Marines will continue to use the Harrier.
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/27/2012 @ 11:33 pmnk,
The Pilatus Porter, doing crap you’d never do in a DC-3.
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/27/2012 @ 11:41 pmAt this point, I won’t believe anything the Obama Administration or its agencies say about this story unless it’s under oath and corroborated.
I’m thinking polygraph.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/28/2012 @ 12:36 amI’m thinking polygraph.
Comment by Kevin M — 10/28/2012 @ 12:36 am
I’m thinking waterboarding!
peedoffamerican (d22d0e) — 10/28/2012 @ 12:40 am#284
I posted about that last night up at #206.
The bottom line: likely partisan advantage, counting leaners is FIFTEEN POINTS higher for Republicans (+12) in 2012 than in 2008 (-3).
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/28/2012 @ 12:42 amI’m thinking waterboarding!
Actually, I just want the new administration to drag them through the courts. I guess Romney’ll have to pardon Obama after a bit, but the rest of them go where Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Mitchell and Dean went.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/28/2012 @ 12:46 amThanks, Steve.
nk (875f57) — 10/28/2012 @ 12:49 amThere’s no crime, Kevin.
nk (875f57) — 10/28/2012 @ 1:24 amThere’s always a crime.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/28/2012 @ 1:29 amComment by elissa — 10/27/2012 @ 10:55 pm
You are correct that we have not heard much about or from these people, but I’m assuming that some of the Fox News info may have come from some of them. They would have been in the “annex”, the CIA operating base, and would have known that they had communication with the chain of command in real time and would have known that Woods was told to stand down and was denied support.
The Blackfive people are pretty adamant that if somebody had “painted the target” with a laser it meant that there was something in the air above that could have fired, if not an AC 130 then an armed drone, because the attackers may have had the ability to detect the source of the laser; which may have then happened since he was killed by a mortar round.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/28/2012 @ 2:01 amThis country had better get ready for war. The muzlems will hit us hard knowing that only private citizens will be fighting for their country. On my property you get to put bullets in your gun to protect yourself from all evil. My rules of engagement.
mg (31009b) — 10/28/2012 @ 2:56 amClarice(narciso’s fave):
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/stand_down_obama_and_biden_stand_down.html
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/28/2012 @ 5:04 am300. The Mrs. in spades.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/28/2012 @ 5:08 amMr. Panetta no doubt supplied a stock resignation letter when he took the job.
By Monday noon the hue and cry will be demanding its acceptance.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/28/2012 @ 5:18 am320- Makes me want to put a bomb in mohamheads turban.
mg (31009b) — 10/28/2012 @ 5:32 amThanks, gary, the exfil was when they arrived at the Tripoli airport, the former Wheelus AFB, to get there from Sigonella, would have been another thing altogether,
narciso (ee31f1) — 10/28/2012 @ 6:25 amI think this was the gist of it;
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/24/world/africa/attack-in-libya-was-major-blow-to-cia-efforts.html
narciso (ee31f1) — 10/28/2012 @ 6:39 amword from Lt. Col. David West was that it would’ve taken 20 minutes to have air power over head and 2 hours to have Delta Force boots on the ground in Benghazi.
Colonel Haiku (de14b7) — 10/28/2012 @ 6:57 amAdd this to the jumble;
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/10/28/was-benghazi-attack-on-u-s-consulate-an-inside-job.html
narciso (ee31f1) — 10/28/2012 @ 8:22 amSenators Warner(D) and Udall(D) weren’t looking too swift or honest when asked direct questions on Fox News Sunday as to whether the two drones flying over our Benghazi consulate were armed or not. Nervous evasion ruled the morning.
And I must add that we are blessed to have Sen. Rob Portman in our ranks.
Colonel Haiku (63d693) — 10/28/2012 @ 8:31 amInstapundit has a link that suggests Woods and Dougherty killed 60 of the attackers.
Imagine what they could have done with support.
Impeachment is proper.
SPQR (1d5971) — 10/28/2012 @ 8:34 amCOL @327, I don’t believe West’s time estimates.
But that’s not the important thing, in my view. In my view the important thing is to ask, what’s the point?
By how many minutes or hours I’d differ with West about how our forces available in the area could have reacted is, in the scheme of things, a minor quibble. The main thing is we did have forces in the area, and they could have reacted.
But they didn’t. So why have them. Again, what’s the point?
Panetta tells the world that the risk of intervening in Libya was too great without better intel. I ask you, what nation is reputed to be better equipped than us to gather operational intel? It’s a rhetorical question; no other nation is. Panetta’s excuse making raises an obvious question; if you don’t trust what your own collectors are collecting then why don’t you put more collection assets over the objective?
Too risky, sez the Tiger Beat presidency. Just like appearing at WH press conference where Jake Tapper might raise an ugly question.
So the upshot is we can’t even intervene in low-level tribal warfare in Libya without perfect intel, and perfect intel never happens (no slight on the intel folks, nobody’s perfect), so where can we intervene and where?
Iran, develop your nuclear arms snuggled safely in the knowledge the Ewe Ess of Aaaay is following the Panetta principle of warfare. It’s too risky. Period.
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/28/2012 @ 8:40 amFiremen and police are paid to move toward the fire, the danger, not wait for it to burn out or for the perps to escape. Same goes for our military… that’s why they exist. To keep Americans safe.
Colonel Haiku (63d693) — 10/28/2012 @ 8:48 amSteve57 …Panetta couldn’t have ordered them not to go. …
He might have started to utter such a craven order, but I doubt that he would have been able to finish it. Some fights you stand aside from, others you run to join.
In an abstract universe where I was reading about this happening to characters in a book (or better, a five act play), this was the climax. Now comes the tragic fall, and then the death of the USA.
htom (412a17) — 10/28/2012 @ 8:50 amBarack 0bama says he gave the order to protect our people. If that order was given, who disobeyed that order? If there is no trail, this president is lying.
And that doesn’t even get into the mendacity around the “evil video”, or the various and sundry issues at play.
Colonel Haiku (63d693) — 10/28/2012 @ 9:01 amIt’s the uncertainty, colonello! The damned uncertainty of it all.
I wonder if the Excuse-maker-in-Chief realizes how he beclowns himself. In front of the “lower orders” who deal with uncertainty on a daily basis.
Obama’s a walking advert for the idea that what we need for Preezy is USMC company commander. Or maybe a USN chief engineer. Somebody who is willing to take on the responsibility of making things work knowing there will be uncertainty.
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/28/2012 @ 9:15 amhttp://www.nationalreview.com/corner/331840/wallace-hits-stonewall-benghazi-were-drones-above-city-armed-eliana-johnson
Colonel Haiku (63d693) — 10/28/2012 @ 9:16 amComment by Kevin M — 10/26/2012 @ 11:34 am
{What could be worse] Maybe we supplied the attacker’s weapons.
That might happen yet.
Come to think of it, it has happened already, a dozen times maybe, in Afghanistan. And we supplied not only their weapons, but their uniforms.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57514687/14-killed-in-afghanistan-suicide-attacks-targeting-foreigners-militant-group-claims-one-blast-as-retaliation-for-anti-muslim-film/
That’s especially true for the attacks by single individuals.
In the following paragraph ally probably means that the United States gave Pakistan money for them.
Hizb-i-Islami is headed by 65-year-old former warlord Gubuddin Hekmatyar — a former Afghan prime minister and one-time U.S. ally who is now listed as a terrorist by Washington. The group is a radical Islamist militia with thousands of fighters and followers across the country’s north and east.
The group has recently been seeking to participate in a so-far fruitless peace and reconciliation effort led by Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Its more moderate parts are thought to have close ties to the Karzai administration and as part of its efforts, the group offered a peace plan that called for a broad-based government.
Sammy Finkelman (a1f34f) — 10/28/2012 @ 9:22 amComment by Colonel Haiku — 10/28/2012 @ 8:48 am
Firemen and police are paid to move toward the fire, the danger, not wait for it to burn out or for the perps to escape.
A lot of them haven’t really done that since around the time of the Columbine massacre – when their first and only priority was protecting themselves.
Sammy Finkelman (a1f34f) — 10/28/2012 @ 9:26 am#
Comment by Colonel Haiku — 10/28/2012 @ 9:01 am
Barack 0bama says he gave the order to protect our people.
By evacuating them.
It is important to know what exactly was his directive and how was it interpreted.
Leon Panetta seems to be implying they spent an interminable amount of time evaluating the situation, and in the end did nothing, except wait for the Libyans to take everybody to the airport. I think it was reported weeks ago that they considered it much too dangerous for anyone to go into the city – that was left for Libyans, and newspaper reporters.
If that order was given, who disobeyed that order? If there is no trail, this president is lying.
And that doesn’t even get into the mendacity around the “evil video”, or the various and sundry issues at play.
Sammy Finkelman (a1f34f) — 10/28/2012 @ 9:32 amSenator McCain used rather strong language on Face the Nation today.
He himself heard personally from the Ambassador when he saw him in Tripolithat he needed more security.
He was on face the Nation on Sept 16th and he says he was slack jawed when he heard Susan Rice come out with her statements.
I think he said that Barack Obama failed the basic test for commander-in-chief.
Video: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57541798/mccain-libya-either-a-cover-up-or-incompetence/
I’m not sure the transcript is out yet. The interview lasted 7 minutes and 55 seconds.
Sammy Finkelman (a1f34f) — 10/28/2012 @ 9:49 am____________________________________________
Comment by Sammy Finkelman — 10/28/2012 @ 9:32 am
Because the quotelines aren’t apparent in your post, and because I at first went through only the most recent postings, I thought “wow, Finkelman finally is showing signs of some clarity instead of that squishy ooze of left-leaning junk that often filters through his noggin.”
Well, no such luck. But merely another example of the way that the design used for Patrick’s forum interface does his blog a disservice. It’s sad too, because I think he deserves activity that reaches the dimensions of the huffingtonpost.com or — more in keeping with this site’s political slant — hotair.com. Puzzling also because he was promoting his website on the live Youtube chat a few days ago, so he apparently does like the idea of his web becoming more popular.
Mark (66bba6) — 10/28/2012 @ 9:50 amAt this point, 0 is lying. It doesn’t matter what documentation is found, fake or real. Maybe he’s not lying — but I’ll never believe him again.
htom (412a17) — 10/28/2012 @ 10:03 amOne thing to remember as far as the time estimates for QRF goes:
The commanders on the ground did not know they had up to seven hours. They didn’t know this wasn’t going to go on for 24 hours.
They should have sent whatever help they could within the first twenty minutes. If it wasn’t there fast enough, but we did all we could… that would be a completely different story. I think Americans could accept that.
Dustin (73fead) — 10/28/2012 @ 10:18 amIt’s not that puzzling. Patrick wants a high readership (what blogger doesn’t?) but he’s spending most of his time on his day job. He had some recent success convicting murderers. It’s easy to understand why he isn’t improving the readability of the blog comment section.
Sammy’s comments are difficult to read because Sammy doesn’t highlight the text he is quoting and selected the “quote” button to make sure it’s offset properly.
His comments would be difficult to read on any interface, and easy to read on this one if he did that one little thing.
I don’t think Sammy intends for his comments to be difficult to read. I just think he should try this “quote” button in the future.
Dustin (73fead) — 10/28/2012 @ 10:21 amMark – What browser are you using? You seem to be the only commenter who consistently complains about the format of the blog.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/28/2012 @ 10:23 amWell TypePad break it up, in 100 post blocs, Disqus can throw things out of order.
narciso (ee31f1) — 10/28/2012 @ 10:25 amI had trouble with a couple of embeds, but that could have been scripts that my security identified as malware. Otherwise, this site has been running fine for me on my Windows Explorer, in all its versions, over all the time I have been here.
nk (875f57) — 10/28/2012 @ 10:36 am______________________________________________
Mark – What browser are you using?
I use Firefox, but I have the same issues with the interface even when I’m using Explorer. But I guess my eyes must deal with text differently from the way you or others see things. But most of the HTML experts who set up the design of message boards elsewhere apparently view things the way I do, because I’ve yet to see their work on any other forum follow a format similar to the one here.
I notice Pat’s blog doesn’t really attract the large number of posters that other sites do, and ultimately I’m sure that’s no sweat off his brow. In fact, I believe heavier use of his forum would cause his monthly service rates to go up. Still, he was expressing interest the other evening in getting more people to visit his blog, which did surprise me because I thought he didn’t care if his site remaining boutique-sized.
Mark (66bba6) — 10/28/2012 @ 10:43 amSammy, I’m glad you comment here. You may yet prove to be what academics term as brilliant.
I never did make many friends, when recalled from comfortable reservist-hood and told the primary mission was force protection, asked “then what the hell are we doing forward deployed? If the primary mission is force protection then wouldn’t that be more easily achieved back in San Diego?”
Your question about Columbine also merits a response.
I had the privilege of corresponding with a Dallas TX PD officer sometime after that event.
A Dallas SWAT officer who shot the escaped gorilla some years before.
Cops are trying their hardest. Their absolute hardest, to be there when you need them. But until then you’re on your own
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/28/2012 @ 10:44 amThis site has the best comment section on the internet. It’s open, it’s honest.
But, yes, sometimes I also think that the backbiting some people engage in, me included, discourages new commenters and sends old ones away. I miss a lot of former commenters –Anwynn, XRLQ, Stashiu, Pablo, Machinist, W1SG …. and more.
nk (875f57) — 10/28/2012 @ 10:54 amThe only times I’ve had problems here, others are also having problems, and changing browsers didn’t help. This isn’t my favorite way to organize a comment thread (no software I’m aware of does that, it would be a complex, river-delta structure with varying viewpoints and elevations.) There are others with similar appearing comment areas; I’ll point at John Scalzi’s Whatever as an example. It has been around for ages like that. An exemplar that reached almost 800 comments in two days is this recent satire. (Comments are now closed; if you read some, you’ll see why he grew tired of policing the thread.)
If this comment scheme keeps some of those idiots away, I say keep it!
htom (412a17) — 10/28/2012 @ 11:11 am_______________________________________________
I also think that the backbiting some people engage in, me included, discourages new commenters and sends old ones away.
But I don’t think it’s any worse here than elsewhere. However, I have wondered if there’s more of a turnover or drop-off rate of users at this site than on other boards. If so, I suspect a lot of that is due not to the contents but to various people being put off by the format.
I recall when I first visited this forum a few years ago, my initial reaction was that it was reminiscent of someone handing me a sheet of paper that contains a block of sentences without any paragraph breaks. So I avoided posting here for quite awhile after that.
Like it or not, I am impressed by the huge number of posters responding to almost any topic at the Huffingtonpost.com. That such a site also leans left does not make its board’s popularity pleasing to me. Only bad thing is that their heavy volume is overkill, because comments there are too easily lost in the crowd.
Mark (66bba6) — 10/28/2012 @ 11:17 amIn response to the questioning from the KUSA reporter, Obama said the following:
Note that Obama does not say he is specifically referring to “our personnel” in Benghazzi. Remember that we had something like 20 embassies around the world become the focus of protests, although the Democrat Media Complex does not want to talk about that, and Obama repeatedly talked about beefing up precautions at those installations. If you want to get into Clintonian word parsing, the president could always go back and say he was addressing the safety of other Americans abroad.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/28/2012 @ 11:19 am“If so, I suspect a lot of that is due not to the contents but to various people being put off by the format.”
Mark – I don’t understand your complaint. Comments are numbered and there is a break between them. Does that not show up on your screen?
Do you want the home page organized differently?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/28/2012 @ 11:24 am______________________________________________
I’ll point at John Scalzi’s Whatever as an example.
That site’s message board is almost the opposite extreme of this one. There’s almost too much of a graphic separation between each post and user. But it does track closer to the format used by just about all other forums out there on the internet.
If Patterico.com’s forum was being used by more people — if it were more popular than it is (which I wish were the case) — I wouldn’t bring this up. Even more so since Pat did express an interest the other day in upping the number of posters to his blog.
Mark (66bba6) — 10/28/2012 @ 11:28 am_______________________________________________
there is a break between them
In a way, yes, but in another way, not really. There is just some white space between each posting, and each of those white spaces, in turn, run together with all the white spaces within the body of each post. YMMV, but if this board’s interface does discourage X percentage of people from becoming users or remaining active posters, that’s unfortunate—I want right-leaning blogs to be as popular as possible.
Mark (66bba6) — 10/28/2012 @ 11:36 amMark – Thanks for the example. I prefer the comment numbering and time stamp here. I see no need for a freaking avatar.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/28/2012 @ 11:38 amFiremen and police are paid to move toward the fire, the danger, not wait for it to burn out or for the perps to escape.
A lot of them haven’t really done that since around the time of the Columbine massacre – when their first and only priority was protecting themselves.
Comment by Sammy Finkelman
Sammy… there are instances where they’ve continued to serve and protect (i.e., Columbine was unusual, an anomaly) that are too numerous to recount here.
Colonel Haiku (63d693) — 10/28/2012 @ 11:40 amI see what you mean. I don’t think of that as opposite (well, I didn’t even think of it as a difference until now!) but I can see what you mean. And I frankly prefer this. I search for previous posts, by myself or others, or replies or mentions of me, by using my browser’s search functions, and doing that, the graphics just take up screen space. I’d rather see an additional twenty lines of text.
Hmmm. Custom CSS in your browser to insert a double blank line before each lessthan-l-i-blank-i-d ?
htom (412a17) — 10/28/2012 @ 11:46 amMark – Then again, I come from a background of reading dense financial and legal documents, so I have no difficulty with the layout of this site. 🙂
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/28/2012 @ 11:51 amMark, it’s just you, and I suspect it’s a setting on your computer. Check Firefox’s preferred font settings for any oddity. Make sure that the “allow pages to set their own fonts” box is checked (Options/Content/Fonts-advanced) and that the default character set isn’t something silly (I have “Western ISO 8859-1”). You might also find the cookie(s) that reference patterico.com and delete them, there could be a corrupted setting.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/28/2012 @ 11:56 amMark, do you see blank lines between each post, and a blank line between the post and the signature?
htom (412a17) — 10/28/2012 @ 12:00 pmWe’ve been through this same exercise several times before with Mark and there is no question he’s sincere. But I thought he had come to the conclusion that while his own eyes don’t seem to adjust well to this format, he accepted that it is completely readable and works just fine for most of us. If he did a screen capture and posted it here would that possibly show once and for all if we/he are seeing something different on the screen?
elissa (a995c4) — 10/28/2012 @ 12:17 pmFrom now on, everyone should insert a line of
JD (318f81) — 10/28/2012 @ 12:19 pm#%#%##%#€£¥£€€£¥£€€%#}%%%#}{][]]}#%
at the beginning of their comment.
#%#%##%#€£¥£€€£¥£€€%#}%%%#}{][]]}#%
SIR YES SIR!
htom (412a17) — 10/28/2012 @ 1:27 pmThe transcript of McCain on “face the Nation” is ready.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57541807/face-the-nation-transcripts-october-28-2012-mccain-and-emanuel/
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 10/28/2012 @ 1:41 pmThis is most of the McCain interview on Face the Nation
http://www.cbsnews.com/2102-3460_162-57541807.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 10/28/2012 @ 1:44 pmPowerline is reporting all four of IA’s major newspapers have endorsed Willard.
An the sun rises all the same.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/28/2012 @ 1:49 pm#%#%##%#€£¥£€€£¥£€€%#}%%%#}{][]]}#%
Mark – Then again, I come from a background of reading dense financial and legal documents,
Actually, daley, it’s pretty impressive when people can peruse through lots of dense, very technical text — such as what’s found in scientific manuals — without their eyes going buggy.
I’ve often wondered how people who read Chinese or Japanese manage to interpret those language’s ideograms correctly, even more so when the typeface is very small. That such societies do well in spite of that form of writing is a testament to the resourcefulness of people.
The opinions above indicate my eyes must view the layout of message boards differently from those of other folks. However, if the interface is one reason Pat’s blog doesn’t generate more activity within its readers forum, that is unfortunate. Again, I’m not thrilled when the left-leaning political blogs out there tally more postings than ones like this. Or sort of the opposite of what’s true of talk radio hosted by conservatives compared with ones hosted by liberals (hello, Air America!).
#%#%##%#€£¥£€€£¥£€€%#}%%%#}{][]]}#%
Mark (66bba6) — 10/28/2012 @ 2:00 pmIn the end, I really don’t think Natural Causes will get to claim Dog.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/28/2012 @ 2:01 pm___________________________________________
Powerline is reporting all four of IA’s major newspapers have endorsed Willard.
I should hope so. If the Midwest (“flyover country”) ever becomes as loony liberal as the two coasts are, that truly will spell the end of the Republic.
Mark (66bba6) — 10/28/2012 @ 2:02 pmhttp://www.nationalreview.com/corner/331849/panetta-doctrine-jonah-goldberg
“Panetta in his best grown-up voice..”
If I thought Dog gave a rip I’d be thinking he threw the election.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/28/2012 @ 2:39 pmGoldberg is sharp.
But I think the larger point is that President Big Bird and Free Condoms is, himself, making the case we don’t need him.
He didn’t make the call to deny aid to the beleaguered men at Benghazi. Someone else did.
And it appears that DoD made the call.
Great. WTF do we need a Preezy for then? If all we need are cabinet secretaries?
Seriously. Let me get this line of argumentation straight. The Department of State has a facility under siege. The CIA has forces engaged in the battle. The Department of Defense doesn’t want to commit forces because of claimed uncertainty.
An it’s above Tiger Beat’s pay grade to make the call about what should happen. He just does Big Bird and Vegas lounge acts.
Do I have this straight?
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/28/2012 @ 3:34 pmIf one tries to find a scenario where everyone’s parsing is actually “truthful” and coherent, it sounds like somewhere along the DoD chain the option was presented to the CiC to not intervene with a team on the ground or whatever was in the air. That way the CiC can say “I did not give the order to withhold help”.
Although Panetta said they didn’t want to put troops blindly into an unknown situation, it seems somebody sent 8 Americans from Tripoli via commercial/private airplane to Benghazi to met with some trusted Libyans to come to the aid. If the DoD did not send them then maybe it was the CIA (though one report talked about the 8 being “Marines”). I have read at least one account that says Dougherty was actually part of this group and that he was killed in the same mortar strike that killed Woods.
So many layers of unexplained issues, starting with why did the ambassador have apparently no specific security personnel in a dangerous area in spite of repeated requests?
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/28/2012 @ 3:54 pmWhen under attack, who and why gave instructions for the CIA house to stay out of it?
Only after those two questions then comes the questions about how and why the only help offered was a group of 8 people who we aren’t sure of their affiliation or chain of command
and whether/what was in the air that Woods thought he was “painting” a target for.
Comment by MD in Philly — 10/28/2012 @ 3:54 pm
So many layers of unexplained issues, starting with why did the ambassador have apparently no specific security personnel in a dangerous area in spite of repeated requests?
The State Department, whoever, would not acknowledge that this was a dangerous area.
When under attack, who and why gave
instructions for the CIA house to stay out of it?
Very good question. I suppose their bosses at CIA HQ. Or whoever was their superior. None of them were in the military still, I think.
Sammy Finkelman (a1f34f) — 10/28/2012 @ 4:11 pmhttp://aoprals.state.gov/Web920/danger_pay_all.asp
I swear, Sammy, there is just not time in the day…
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/28/2012 @ 4:55 pmSammy, it has reached the point where you are generating as much pure BS as the White House. You seem to make up more absolute crap than the professional BS artists.
SPQR (768505) — 10/28/2012 @ 4:57 pmJennifer Griffin, says the order to stand down, came from the base chief, echoed by the station chief, which had to come from Africa Division, all the way from the 7th Floor of Langley
narciso (ee31f1) — 10/28/2012 @ 5:00 pmOne word to describe the Panetta Doctrine: McClellan.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/28/2012 @ 5:24 pmNow I added that last phrase, but how else to figure what the statement means,
narciso (ee31f1) — 10/28/2012 @ 5:32 pmSo then who is the guy or gal who proved Panetta wrong? Who is the guy or gal who proved you could fly aircraft 400 plus miles (Hello! Sigonella!) into Benghazi airspace? And put boots on the ground.
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/28/2012 @ 5:58 pmSecond question; who decides we stand down? CIA?
This part is murky, unfortunately, and it wouldn’t be murky if this country elected a chief executive rather than a prom queen.
But part of the govenment responded. They sent a relief force. The rest didn’t.
And while somebody apparently was telling US forces to stand down, they didn’t tell the Libyan gub’mint, “Never mind about that attack on our embassy.”
The Libyans, too, responded to the calls for aid.
Petraeus, as I earlier surmised, might have ordered in the relief force. Or, maybe he didn’t. But how does it conceal a CIA operation to have DoD deny a request for aid from DoS? Especially when those DoS and CIA installations are overrun, abandoned, and compromised?
What the hell?
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/28/2012 @ 6:13 pmyou could fly aircraft
400 plus miles (Hello! Sigonella!)into Benghazi airspace? And put boots on the ground.I thought the contingent of 8 came from Tripoli, which is I don’t know how many miles from Benghazi.
Maybe the DoD didn’t want to do it for whatever reason but the CIA decided they would do what they could themselves.
Of course, it’s already been discussed that what Panetta said didn’t seem to make much sense, but at least he seemed to take some responsibility for saying it was a military decision to not put more soldiers at risk (and let the poor fools try to fight it out themselves).
The ironic and tragic thing is, perhaps they were doing just fine until they used their laser to tag a target, identifying their position for the mortar strike that killed them. That makes it even more criminal not to have given them support.
One thing that would “make sense” is that it was a set up to kidnap the ambassador and the militia doing the attack were actually to some degree allied with the interests of the WH, and the one didn’t want to blow up the henchmen of whoever he had made a deal with.
Yes that’s treason. But isn’t fast and furious a bit on the treasonous side too?
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/28/2012 @ 6:13 pmIt seems like there was an incompetent and gutless decision to sacrifice the people on the ground for whatever reason, or there was something really twisted going on that the CIA wasn’t in on.
From some things one reads it seems Obama meets more often with reps of the Muslim Brotherhood than his own intel. staff.
Oh yeah, wasn’t there a little bit of an issue about one of Sec. Clinton’s associates being family of Muslim Brotherhood types.
Yeah, sounds like crazytalk. But if someone told you 2 years ago that the DOJ was facilitating the illegal transport of guns into the hands of Mexican drug gangs as part of a ploy to increase pressure for more anti-gun laws in the US… but there has to date been no satisfactory alternative explanation given.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/28/2012 @ 6:21 pmDoc, I’ve done the math. Something that’s wolf’s bane to the Obama admin.
Tripoli to Benghazi is about 404.5 miles.
Siracusa, Sicily, is about 436 miles.
We have assets in Sigonella, Sicily, that could have provided devastating close air support faster than the Tripoli station could ever have conceived of.
Yet the Tripoli quick reaction force is the only asset to arrive Benghazi.
Doc, this is all complete bullshit.
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/28/2012 @ 6:22 pmThat staffer btw, convened an end of Ramadan dinner, almost a month later, on a very significant
narciso (ee31f1) — 10/28/2012 @ 6:35 pmdate in that calendar,
383. Thanks, apart from a native coarseness, I was beginning to feel untenably irascible. Nice to know the gentle folk are beside themselves too.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/28/2012 @ 6:37 pmDoc, admittedly I know very little about ground laser designation, and what little I know is from the naval aviation side what was supposed to deliver the bomb to the lazed spot, and my memory is years out of date.
But IF memory serves, and IF these reports are correct, the idea these guys would have been designating a target without the firm knowledge that there was an air asset to engage the target sounds balled up beyond belief.
If I may use a Bidenism.
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/28/2012 @ 6:57 pmTruth in advertising- I know very little of anything military unless I read it at Blackfive. The near unanimous consensus is as you state, if it was true as stated that they had engaged a laser targeting device it would have meant there was something above that they thought was going to fire. First, to use the targeting device would have meant the operator would have to put down his weapon. No reason to put down your weapon when you are outnumbered 10:1 or more. Second, it is said that there is technology for a smart phone that can detect a laser targeting mechanism and indicate the source, so if your weaponry doesn’t come through you’ve just advertised your position.
I’m thinking that most military people who had their finger on the trigger and were told to not shoot and then knew what happened would have a hard time living with themselves and that secret and would want to tell someone, if not a reporter then a Congressman/Senator on an Armed Services Committee or something. “Senator McCain, can I see you in your office, it’s of vital importance.”
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/28/2012 @ 7:57 pmNo matter how much they want to bury this, I think this is the kind of thing that McCain will be like a raging bulldog and will not let go if he has to storm the WH himself.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/28/2012 @ 8:00 pm“But IF memory serves, and IF these reports are correct, the idea these guys would have been designating a target without the firm knowledge that there was an air asset to engage the target sounds balled up beyond belief.”
“Second, it is said that there is technology for a smart phone that can detect a laser targeting mechanism and indicate the source, so if your weaponry doesn’t come through you’ve just advertised your position.”
Using parts of comments from Steve57 and MD in Philly, just a thought if laser designator is indeed detectable, could it not be used as a ploy to scare the crap out of your attackers, making them think they are about to receive a few Hellfire’s courtesy of Uncle Sam, perhaps leading them to breaking off their attack?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/28/2012 @ 8:04 pmcould it not be used as a ploy to scare the crap out of your attackers, making them think they are about to receive a few Hellfire’s courtesy of Uncle Sam, perhaps leading them to breaking off their attack?
Comment by daleyrocks — 10/28/2012 @ 8:04 pm
Theoretically that is reasonable, especially as a last gasp if you think you’re going to be overrun, but this was mentioned as a possibility at Blackfive and the consensus of all the spec ops guys there was that it didn’t ring true, that they couldn’t see putting down your weapon in the middle of an intense fire fight hoping the enemy would detect your laser and then break off their attack.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/28/2012 @ 8:10 pmWhen you’re in this kind of fight the only ploy that’s going to do is to pour it on. Hot lead if you have it.
Fake airplanes will do you no good, once the barbarians have breached the walls you once claimed were invincible.
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/28/2012 @ 8:29 pm” but this was mentioned as a possibility at Blackfive and the consensus of all the spec ops guys there was that it didn’t ring true, that they couldn’t see putting down your weapon in the middle of an intense fire fight hoping the enemy would detect your laser and then break off their attack.”
MD in Philly – Thanks. From the descriptions, they were lasing the mortar tubes, which would have been a few hundred yards away, I’m guessing. I understand the not putting down your weapon angle, but there were more than two defenders of the annex. By all accounts, only four mortar shells were fired unless I’m misreading them, so perhaps the strategy worked. I’m not trying to second guess the experienced operators commenting at Black Five.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/28/2012 @ 8:48 pmI actually think Daleyrocks’s theory is very creative and actually possible.
Sure, it’s extreme, but if those men were running out of ammo and have a Mark VII, and knew that a $150 digital camera can see it painting a target (which might cause that position to be fled), would they at least give it a shot?
I would if I had absolutely no options left.
You’re right. It wouldn’t do (and didn’t).
How much ammo did they have left? If some reports are accurate, they killed dozens and dozens. They held those guys off hoping that it would buy enough time to get them the help they needed.
That help should have been on the way instantly. It would have taken a gutsy call, I guess.
Dustin (73fead) — 10/28/2012 @ 8:54 pmMy guess is that the WH wanted a light rescue to minimize the headlines. Using F-18s or Spectre gunships or helicopters full of commandos to fight off the Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists would show how little ground Obama’s gained in the war.
I think it’s as simple as that. They were trying to minimize the political problem instead of doing all they could.
Dustin (73fead) — 10/28/2012 @ 9:00 pmDustin – Thanks. I’ll bet it’s been done before by Special Forces types as a bluff.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/28/2012 @ 9:09 pmIn the realm of pure speculation, if Woods et al were not in contact with air assets at the time, the use of a laser designator could have been a bluff or it could have been done with the forlorn hope that air assets were around that they were not in radio contact with.
If they were in radio contact with air assets, and those assets were denied permission by the White House to fire on Woods’ designations, impeachment is the answer.
SPQR (768505) — 10/28/2012 @ 9:11 pm“My guess is that the WH wanted a light rescue to minimize the headlines.”
Dustin – Or if their concern was avoiding another Mogadishu, how do you publicly fess up to saying you were willing to toss the lives of your people on the ground away only to see them rescued due to the heroism of the people already there. The “Panetta Doctrine” does not cut it as an explanation.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/28/2012 @ 9:13 pmVia Powerline commenter, this the most damning analysis of all.
Tyrone Woods was painting a target with a ground laser designator (GLD). Those are only used when the air asset is overhead, ready to fire. The jihadis can use cell phones with night-vision capabilities to see the laser beam, which then pinpoints the location of the person using the GLD. As a former Navy SEAL, Woods would’ve known that. He would only have exposed himself if he thought that the mortar squad was about to be taken out. The air asset didn’t fire, and Woods and Glen Doherty were killed by the mortar squad.
There was either a Spectre gunship or an armed Predator or Reaper drone overhead, and it was denied permission to fire. That’s the only explanation that fits. Woods would not have used his GLD for any other reason than to paint a target for an immediate air strike.
Only the commander of AFRICOM and the president have the authority to tell the air asset to not fire in this situation.”
Dana (292dcf) — 10/28/2012 @ 9:18 pmAre you starting up an office pool so people can bet on this one, Dana?
elissa (a995c4) — 10/28/2012 @ 9:33 pmOh Valerie, what have you done?
elissa (a995c4) — 10/28/2012 @ 9:37 pmThat makes sense too. If the decision makers in the White House (people like Gaspard and Jarrett instead of people like Petraeus and Gates) saw carnage, I imagine they would become extremely risk averse and hesitate to do anything that might make the situation worse. And in a situation where these men were losing against impossible odds, it would require risk taking to help them.
I can totally see the conversation play out that way.
The truth is that the right time to win this fight was when Ambassador Stevens noted he needed more security. We cannot go into a place like Libya and just hope our strength is never tested. In fact, that attitude is provocative.
Dustin (73fead) — 10/28/2012 @ 9:38 pmSomewhere above those making the reports from the compound is a live coward who endangers every person on this planet while it remains in place.
htom (412a17) — 10/28/2012 @ 9:51 pmelissa,
Frankly, I am increasingly distressed by this – the thought of them being denied assistance is beyond the pale.
As a parent myself, I simply cannot imagine the depth of grief Woods and Doherty’s parents must be experiencing. That their sons were denied assistance (that very well could have saved their lives) and and watch the ensuing cover-up take place is something beyond horrific.
As a voter, I am also increasingly appalled at the silence from the usual big mouths. They finally have a *real* BIG story, yet in their sycophantic bias, sit on their collective fat asses steeped in their own noxious smugness, and believing in their own righteousness they arrogantly sneer and jeer at the very few journalists brave enough to pull the threads of this massive debacle to uncover the truth.
There are so many who should be so very, very ashamed.
Dana (292dcf) — 10/28/2012 @ 9:56 pmDana–I could not agree with you more.
elissa (a995c4) — 10/28/2012 @ 10:01 pmI don’t think we’ve ever seen a more glaring example of the ‘if it were Bush’s administration, they would cover this loudly’.
Within a month of Romney’s administration, the MSM will find something mundane that gets 100X the coverage of Benghazi. No exaggeration.
Dustin (73fead) — 10/28/2012 @ 10:03 pmBTW, I really do think it’s likely Valerie (and Panetta) made this terrible call in the president’s name, and he cannot throw her under the bus to save himself since that would be tantamount to admitting publicly that he’s been delegating his presidency.
elissa (a995c4) — 10/28/2012 @ 10:07 pmSpeaking of Jarrett, who has been noticeably silent and absent…
Ambassador Chris Stevens did not have a Marine detail in Benghazi, Libya. But White House Senior Advisor and Obama confidante Valerie Jarrett has a full Secret Service detail on vacation in Martha’s Vineyard, according to Democratic pollster Pat Caddell.
That’s the pathetic foreign policy of the Obama administration, says Caddell today in an exclusive interview with Breitbart News. “Jarrett seems to have a 24 hour, around the clock detail, with five or six agents full time,” Caddell explains. “The media has been completely uninterested. We don’t provide security for our ambassador in Libya, but she needs a full Secret Service security detail. And nobody thinks there’s anything wrong with this. And nobody in the press will ask. What kind of slavish stoogery are they perpetrating here?
“This country has reached the point of absurdity. There are people dead because we don’t have security details for them. But she’s privileged to have a full Secret Service detail on vacation?”
Dana (292dcf) — 10/28/2012 @ 10:13 pmWe have to find out more about the why, too. There was a big CIA presence there in Benghazi. There was a reason the CIA was there at that outpost and we know it had nothing to do with consulate security. I think a lot of people have come to believe that this CIA operation, whatever it was, is the key to the perceived “need” for a coverup.
elissa (a995c4) — 10/28/2012 @ 10:30 pmYou know what I am afraid of?
This all comes out after the election. We get President Biden.
Thus, let’s hope Romney wins. Because I don’t see how POTUS gets out of this clean. I smell Chicago arrogance, hubris, and the slavish press.
Can you imagine if this President had an R after his name?
The coverup won’t hold forever.
Simon Jester (f39977) — 10/28/2012 @ 10:47 pmThe CIA operation reportedly had to do with tracking down weapons from the previous Libyan army, especially Stinger surface to air missiles and the like.
The CIA operation as described sounds pretty rational, unlike leaving the ambassador as a sitting duck.
That is a scary thought Simon, but perhaps not as scary as 4 more years of Obama.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/29/2012 @ 4:23 am==The CIA operation as described sounds pretty rational==
Doc–With so much clearly intentional obfuscation and with so many pieces of the Benghazi situation “as described” having now been proved false if not outright lies by this administration, I am unwilling to take anything about it at face value. None of it looks rational to me in the slightest. And it’s all tied together in a very ugly way.
elissa (6b23b9) — 10/29/2012 @ 5:51 amSince we’re speculating …
In today’s Fox News report, we learn that CIA Director Petraeus contradicted a 9/12 FBI briefing that this was a terror attack and told Congress on 9/13 this was about the video. That’s probably why the Administration was willing to blame the video for so long.
So the question is why Petraeus would do that. My guess is there was a CIA or other operation in Benghazi that Petraeus wanted to hide. Maybe that’s why Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi to start with and why Woods and Doherty were told to stand down. If so, it would explain why the government was willing to take casualties for this mission.
Some of the wilder speculation I’ve read is that this was a kind of Fast and Furious or Arms for Contras-type operation designed to arm the anti-Assad rebels in Syria. All Presidents do this but it strikes me as something Obama would especially embrace. He loves the covert stuff, and if Obama authorized it on Petraeus’ recommendation then it makes sense that Petraeus would be the one to take the point in covering it up.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/29/2012 @ 6:49 amHere is a link to the Fox News report.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/29/2012 @ 6:53 amAlso, I think my dates are wrong. The FBI briefing was on 9/13 and the Petraeus briefing on the following day.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/29/2012 @ 6:55 amOne more thing:
If this is what happened, it could also explain why Romney declined to push Obama on this topic in the foreign policy debate. Romney may have been briefed on this and decided not to do anything that risked exposing the operation. But at this point, I don’t think Congress will let this drop.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/29/2012 @ 7:03 amThis theory could also explain why it took so long to get the FBI into Benghazi. It wasn’t in the loop so there was no rush to get the FBI in country and muddy the narrative.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/29/2012 @ 7:10 amIs anyone here old enough to remember the Iran-Contra hearings which pre-empted daytime network TV for several days because “Americans had the right to know what their government was up to, what was being done in their name, and how their tax dollars were being spent”? (And an ambassador didn’t even get killed in that one.)
elissa (6b23b9) — 10/29/2012 @ 7:12 amSo his need for more security, and the denial of adequate security, might be related to the administration’s wish to keep a low profile.
If this is the case… if they were risking lives in order to win an important fight, I would be able to accept that if they did all they could to protect these people when they were attacked.
Thanks for the theory, DRJ. You’re always insightful.
Dustin (73fead) — 10/29/2012 @ 7:19 amOver at Blackfive they mention a group called “Commanders In-Extemis Force (CIF)”. Their basic job is to jump at a moment’s notice and get briefed on the way to whatever emergency needs them. They can deploy faster than Delta. The Spec Ops people and such say Panetta was talking BS, as many will say they themselves were sent into missions knowing far less than what was available at Benghazi.
(In addition, some time ago I read that the AF has their own spec ops team/s for the purpose of trying to rescue downed pilots no matter what kind of situation they’re in).
Here is a link to a radio interview:
http://www.kfiam640.com/player/?station=KFI-AM&program_name=podcast&program_id=DarkSecretPlace.xml&mid=22575160
Elissa, I agree with not believing things at face value, it’s just that I figure when Libya fell apart there were a lot of advanced weapons such as stinger missiles that one doesn’t want to get into the wrong hands so that part of it “makes sense”.
It seems that the team that did go to Benghazi was made of CIA contractors helping their own when nobody else would. I’m still, for the moment, thinking Petraeus is stuck between a rock and a hard place, knowing he can’t publicly contradict the president, “wants to be a good soldier and follow orders”, and doesn’t want to abandon the folks in the CIA to Obama and whoever he would appoint as a replacement.
Remember the old “mob quote”, “keep your friends close and your enemies closer”, maybe Petraeus counts as an enemy to the likes of Obama.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/29/2012 @ 8:03 amIf this is the case… if they were risking lives in order to win an important fight, I would be able to accept that if they did all they could to protect these people when they were attacked.
Comment by Dustin — 10/29/2012 @ 7:19 am
My thinking is that if there was a real need to keep the lowest of profiles, and that the ambassador knew it and was in on it, there would not have been requests made for more security. I don’t think Stevens knew what he was being used for.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/29/2012 @ 8:06 amDustin,
Regardless of what the real story is, I agree that the problem is the apparent willingness to leave those 20-plus people in Benghazi to fend for themselves. That’s where this all broke down for the Administration.
The military doesn’t abandon its troops, and the government doesn’t abandon its diplomats and civilians. Woods and Doherty knew this even if Petraeus and Obama don’t.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/29/2012 @ 8:07 amMD,
I’m playing devil’s advocate but Ambassador Stevens could have asked for more security because he knew there were greater risks, but the State Department wasn’t in the loop so it saw no reason to give him more security.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/29/2012 @ 8:13 amI think Petraeus did know it. He said that no one in the CIA refused requests for help, or some such parsed wording, so I am interpreting that as when the military wouldn’t act, Petraeus and the CIA did what they could, which was gather a team of military background from nearby (Tripoli) and get them there with “trusted” Libyans ASAP.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/29/2012 @ 8:15 amWhy do you say the military wouldn’t act?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/29/2012 @ 8:19 amMD – in theAir Force, their special forces units are called Combat Control and Pararescue. .
JD (436368) — 10/29/2012 @ 8:19 amComment by DRJ — 10/29/2012 @ 8:13 am
I agree that there are multiple ways to speculate with various reasoning.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/29/2012 @ 8:20 amI just don’t see how anyone with 1/10th of a brain could not realize that a place like Libya without a strong central government, even if it is a trusted ally, was about as dangerous as one could get.
According to Rep Chaffetz, General Ham said there was never was a request for military assistance.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/29/2012 @ 8:23 amMD,
The CIA sends people into many dangerous places. It’s especially dangerous if diplomats engage in more than diplomacy. I’m not saying that happened here but it might have.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/29/2012 @ 8:25 amAlso, my last link reports there was no CIF force in General Ham’s command, although I doubt that was a problem since there was a rapid response team available at the Italian base.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/29/2012 @ 8:28 amWhy do you say the military wouldn’t act?
Comment by DRJ — 10/29/2012 @ 8:19 am
Not sure of your question, so I’ll answer in two parts:
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/29/2012 @ 8:31 am1) I say they “wouldn’t act” because in fact they didn’t (other than have assets in position to act).
2) Why they didn’t act, I don’t know. Possible reasons I’ve seen mentioned are:
a. Obama didn’t want to admit there was an actual armed terrorist strike
b. that the ideas for rules of engagement are such that avoiding civilian casualties was more important than saving American lives
c. Obama is willing to commit to something only when well planned, including planning for who will take the fall if it doesn’t work out (since the one will not)
d. the original plan was for the ambassador to be captured, and when that didn’t happen there was no plan for what to do next- crazy as it seems, you have an armed attack on the consulate, a fire is started, the expectation was that the two people inside would flee the fire and surrender- but the terrorist crew was not quite as “disciplined at following orders” as their leaders would have wanted.
MD,
Rather than assume the military refused to act, I think it makes more sense to assume the CIA pulled rank and stopped a response that might blow the cover on an operation. Indeed, trying to use local Libyan assets to keep a lid on the story would be what I’d expect the CIA to do.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/29/2012 @ 8:33 am#
SF: The State Department, whoever, would not acknowledge that this was a dangerous area.
Comment by Steve57 — 10/28/2012 @ 4:55 pm
http://aoprals.state.gov/Web920/danger_pay_all.asp
LIBYA Tripoli 30% 07/15/2012
I swear, Sammy, there is just not time in the day…
Would not acknowledge that it was a very dangerous area such that more security was needed. They did offer extra pay. They put Libya – all of Libya – in the same category as Yemen, but below that of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq.
Sammy Finkelman (a1f34f) — 10/29/2012 @ 8:35 amSaying the military “wouldn’t act” implies it refused to act. That’s different than saying there was no military response.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/29/2012 @ 8:36 amThe links I’ve given say that it might be true to say technically that there was no CIF team under Ham’s command, as he was in charge of the military in Africa, but that is beside the point, that if CIF was not already sitting in Italy they could have/did get their from Stuttgart.
There is no sense in having rapid response teams unless they are located where they would be of use.
Some of the military bloggers say that the CIF doesn’t need to be requested, they are an automatic go for such a situation and would need to be told not to.
If anyone parses words better than lawyers, it’s CIA, DoD and DoS intelligence, and politicians associated with them.
(Is there a Monte Python sketch for this, not the “Argument Clinic”, but something like a discussion of what the meaning of “is” is?)
MD – in theAir Force, their special forces units are called Combat Control and Pararescue. .
Comment by JD — 10/29/2012 @ 8:19 am
Thanks JD. I figure those folks are all like Chuck Norris in his prime plus the most advanced super-secret equipment.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/29/2012 @ 8:41 amRather than assume the military refused to act, I think it makes more sense to assume the CIA pulled rank and stopped a response that might blow the cover on an operation. Indeed, trying to use local Libyan assets to keep a lid on the story would be what I’d expect the CIA to do.
Comment by DRJ — 10/29/2012 @ 8:33 am
Well that is certainly a possibility, but I think that is more in contradiction to the CIA/Petreaus statement, and if I have to choose who to believe, I’ll believe Petreaus parsing over WH parsing.
And I don’t think CIA could have pulled rank over the DoD unless the one said so.
And if there was an issue of the CIA stuff being compromised, either Woods and company didn’t know about something themselves, or they put defending American lives as more important. One “benefit” of being a civilian contractor rather than in the military is you aren’t being given orders to obey, you’re given directives where you can say go to h, I quit.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/29/2012 @ 8:49 amCombat Control and Pararescue.
They’ll be the first to get personal jet packs.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/29/2012 @ 8:50 amMD,
I would not be as suspicious of Petraeus and the CIA if they hadn’t been the ones pushing the theme that this happened because of the video. But they were, so we have to consider why.
I rule out the possibility that the CIA’s best analysts actually believed and continue to believe this was a spontaneous video protest instead of a 9/11 act of terror. That leaves me with only one conclusion. This was something the CIA doesn’t want to reveal.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/29/2012 @ 8:50 am437. CIA or ODNI?
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/29/2012 @ 8:54 amActually, I think my theory is the one that gives Petraeus the most credit. Seeing Petraeus and the CIA push the “spontaneous video protest” meme makes them seem stupid and clueless, or willing to fall on their sword for Obama. I hope neither of those is true.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/29/2012 @ 8:55 amIt could be a either or both, but why is Petraeus pushing this if it’s mostly ODNI?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/29/2012 @ 8:57 am435, 437. To this point, the only reasonable default supposition is that AFRICOM mounted a rescue effort and was ordered to ‘Stand Down’ by authority of the CinC.
Anything else is a deep hook.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/29/2012 @ 9:00 am440. The report by Ignatius at WaPo that the video meme w/regard to Benghazi was of CIA origin, and was confirmed as such by the CIA needs to be sourced.
I know it is being treated as fact, but I don’t believe it is fact.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/29/2012 @ 9:04 amComment by MD in Philly — 10/29/2012 @ 8:15 am
He said that no one in the CIA refused requests for help,
The Ambassador, who was maybe the only person present in the mission who knew about the armed CIA people nearby, did not ask for them to help.
Of course, he quickly went into the safe room firetrap.
There were only maybe 3 Americans there at the time – actually that’s not clear.
Nobody at the mission, at any rate, asked for help from them, or maybe the word asked should be in quotation marks – i.e., nobody official “asked”, and neither did anybody in Tripoli, or any other agency or department in Washington.
That’s what that means.
Sammy Finkelman (a1f34f) — 10/29/2012 @ 9:06 amI believe the meme that the video was associated with the Cairo mob assault on the Embassy was of
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/29/2012 @ 9:08 amCIA origin, the only connection with Benghazi is Morsi.
Ok. From PJM Oct. 11
“Yet a congressional source told Fox News that CIA Director David Petraeus, during a briefing with members of the House Intelligence Committee three days after the attack, espoused the view that Benghazi was an out-of-control demonstration prompted by the YouTube video. According to the source, this was “shocking” to some members who were present and saw the same intelligence pointing toward a terrorist attack.”
Evidently there is evidence Petraeus pushed this connection.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/29/2012 @ 9:25 amRasmussen has it 50%R to 48%O in OH among likelies.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/29/2012 @ 9:31 amOh, Sammy #443. I know this is a waste of time but who do you think called for help, if not the Ambassador or someone on his staff?
More to the point: Do you really think the Ambassador was the only person who knew there were CIA assets in Libya? Do you really think American diplomats are that clueless?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/29/2012 @ 9:36 amSammy, once again you make up stuff to “interpret” for us.
SPQR (53ab29) — 10/29/2012 @ 9:39 am“I know it is being treated as fact, but I don’t believe it is fact.”
gary – The one congressional source which you mention in #445, a Dem Senator I believe, is the only reference to Petraeus pushing a video narrative that I have seen.
I would like additional confirmation as well.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/29/2012 @ 9:44 am412. Comment by DRJ — 10/29/2012 @ 6:49 am
Some of the wilder speculation I’ve read is that this was a kind of Fast and Furious or Arms for Contras-type operation designed to arm the anti-Assad rebels in Syria.
But the problem was, (reading between the lines*), the United States didn’t want SA-7 anti-aircraft missiles included in the shipments , and actually there should have been and could have been other issues like which particular rebels were being given the weapons.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/25/was-syrian-weapons-shipment-factor-in-ambassadors-benghazi-visit/#ixzz2AhsuH35r
Let’s assume this is just a little bit garbled.
The Ambassador was interfering. He wanted Turkey to remove or prevent any anti-aircraft missiles from being included, or perhaps he went to Benghazi to investigate, and/or stop it from happening again, so the Saudis, who, along with Qatar, were organizing the shipments, (Turkey was involved because the weapons went through Turkey) decided to kill the Ambassador and make it look like it was some virulent anti-American mob that did it.
Sammy Finkelman (a1f34f) — 10/29/2012 @ 10:18 amSammy–does this theory of yours @10:18 explain in any manner whatsoever why no one in the American government went to the aid of Americans in Benghazi?
elissa (6b23b9) — 10/29/2012 @ 10:27 amComment by gary gulrud — 10/29/2012 @ 9:08 am
I believe the meme that the video was associated with the Cairo mob assault on the Embassy was of CIA origin.
Also the fact that the Cairo embassy issued a statement about the video, in an apparent attempt to hold off the mob.
But apparently, the actual protesters never said anything about it.
Their cause was freedom for 1993 World Trade Center bomb leader Sheik Omar Abdul Rahman, and Al Qaeda in general.
I guess the Saudis/Moslem Brotherhood were responsible for all this about the video. There was also something on Egyptian TV about it.
I guess people need to look at just where did this idea about the video come from.
The reason for the al-Sharia claim of responsibility in Libya – claims of responsibility, BTW, are always false and usually designed to make terrorism look more decentralized than it is – was because we might know more or less who were the group of people attacking the mission. They were there for some time.
There was also a claim of responsibility by a group that said they wanted Omar Abdul Rahman released from prison, which pointed to Egypt, which is where the organizers had connections.
When it looked like the terrorist group angle could be avoided altogether, or at least connected to the video, they tried that, and Ansar al Shaia withdrew its claim, maybe also because it could get them in trouble.
for those who wouldn’t buy that, and needed a terrorist group, they tried to link it to Al Qaeda in Mali.
Sammy Finkelman (a1f34f) — 10/29/2012 @ 10:31 amI read that the CIA people actually had 3 prisoners whom they were forced to release when they were evacuated from the country.
Sammy Finkelman (a1f34f) — 10/29/2012 @ 10:34 amMore digging needs to be done on the purpose of the Ambassador’s trip to Benghazi on 9/11. A visit to a hospital and school are not adequate explanations to be there on such a sensitive date.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/29/2012 @ 10:34 amHow long they were prisoners, I don’t know. From that day, or from some time back, connected with militias, or arms?
Sammy Finkelman (a1f34f) — 10/29/2012 @ 10:36 amSammy, if they were trying to make it look like an anti-American mob, shouldn’t they have drummed up an anti-American mob? How hard could that be?
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/29/2012 @ 10:40 amomment by elissa — 10/29/2012 @ 10:27 am
Sammy–does this theory of yours @10:18 explain in any manner whatsoever why no one in the American government went to the aid of Americans in Benghazi?
They were getting their information about what was going on from the Saudis.
Sammy Finkelman (a1f34f) — 10/29/2012 @ 10:41 amAnd from people in the Libyan government, who assured them everything was all right now.
Sammy Finkelman (a1f34f) — 10/29/2012 @ 10:42 amThe second e-mail, at 4:54 said everything was all right,.
The e-mail is not an original source. It’s the State Department’s bulletin system.
Now the question is, what was the situation actually about 45 minutes after the first e-mail.
Sammy Finkelman (a1f34f) — 10/29/2012 @ 10:45 amI am sure there are other considerations, like the Obama policy of never using Americans for anything which foreign forces can do.
Sammy Finkelman (a1f34f) — 10/29/2012 @ 10:48 amFear of inflicting casualties, too, on innocent civilians, or friendly forces.
Sammy Finkelman (a1f34f) — 10/29/2012 @ 10:50 am“They were getting their information about what was going on from the Saudis.”
Sammy – Were the Saudi’s the ones providing the live video feeds and drone coverage?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/29/2012 @ 10:51 amComment by DRJ — 10/29/2012 @ 9:36 am
I know this is a waste of time but who do you think called for help, if not the Ambassador or someone on his staff?
I don’t know. What does the original published report say?
More to the point: Do you really think the Ambassador was the only person who knew there were CIA assets in Libya? Do you really think American diplomats are that clueless?
I mean the only person under attack who knew.
Back in Tripoli all they knew was that they were out of contact with the Ambassador. They didn’t know what kind of help he needed. there was a Libyan force coming to his aid, so they were told.
Sammy Finkelman (a1f34f) — 10/29/2012 @ 10:54 am“They were getting their information about what was going on from the Saudis.”
Comment by daleyrocks — 10/29/2012 @ 10:51 am
Sammy – Were the Saudi’s the ones providing the live video feeds and drone coverage?
When did that start? Not before the attack, I would think.
And what did it show?
Sammy Finkelman (a1f34f) — 10/29/2012 @ 10:59 amOMG. My head. It hurts.
elissa (6b23b9) — 10/29/2012 @ 11:00 amWe don’t have any details, really..
Just fragementary facts. Maybe a chronology can be put together.
Sammy Finkelman (a1f34f) — 10/29/2012 @ 11:01 amSammy, its less than impressive when you invent “facts” out of whole cloth in one comment and then tell us that we have “fragmentary facts” in another. You’ve done a lot of confuse with your habit of treating your own stream of consciousness speculations as “facts”.
SPQR (768505) — 10/29/2012 @ 11:09 amOne closed brief of Congress, that is all. There seems to be a lot of confusion of circumstance among the various assaults Sept. 11 and 12.
Powder dry.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/29/2012 @ 11:30 amComment by Kevin M — 10/29/2012 @ 10:40 am
Sammy, if they were trying to make it look like an anti-American mob, shouldn’t they have drummed up an anti-American mob? How hard could
They tried to make it look like an anti-American mob by having such a mob in Cairo. The people in Washington might assume, with a little help, that it was the same thing.
In Benghazi, they wanted the element of surprise, so as to be better able to kill the Ambassador, (and all of the other Americans there at the time)
I think there was only Sean Smith and one other person plus a bodyguard Stevens had taken with him from Tripoli, David Ubben, who was severely wounded and nearly killed several hours later in the second attack (on the CIA outpost)
If no Americans survived, it was possible to think you could make up a story about a mob. Of course there were other sources too, and the fact that Sean Smith was online when it began.
Another reason for no real mob (no mob besides besides the attackers that is) is the fact it was in fact NOT easy to drum up an anti-American mob.
The people there were very grateful to the United States for saving them from Qaddafi, and in particular grateful to Christopher Stevens.
http://www.allgov.com/news/appointments-and-resignations/ambassador-to-libya-who-is-chris-stevens?news=844191
Sammy Finkelman (a1f34f) — 10/29/2012 @ 11:30 am“We don’t have any details, really..”
Sammy – Except for the live video feeds from the consulate which you apparently claim were provided by the Saudis and later Saudi drone feeds and communications from the CIA annex which were channeled through the Saudis.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/29/2012 @ 11:33 amDaleyrocks – we are just onlookers to his narrative. And witnesses to the splendor that is Sammy.
JD (318f81) — 10/29/2012 @ 11:35 am“Another reason for no real mob (no mob besides besides the attackers that is) is the fact it was in fact NOT easy to drum up an anti-American mob.”
Sammy – Exactly, which is why the State Department turned down repeated requests for increased security at the consulate in Benghazi in spite of the June bombing and the departure of the Red Cross and the British from the City. It is all coming together nicely.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/29/2012 @ 11:40 amJD – It’s like watching Russell Crowe in A Beautiful Mind.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/29/2012 @ 11:41 amJuan Williams thinks R&R are hiding Ryan.
‘Why ain’t we seen him on the TV, if they ain’t buryin’ his racist ass? Tell me that will ya.’
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/29/2012 @ 11:45 amAmbassador, and three others killed in Benghazi after increased security was ignored prior to the fact, and
relief and possible rescue was denied when it could have mattered:
Dereliction of Duty!
AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92) — 10/29/2012 @ 11:45 amSubordinate military officials would be Courts-Martialed;
A Commander-In-Chief should be sacked!
475. Make him prove he’s incompetent, indifferent and lazy.
Don’t charge him with the fallback, charge him with aiding and abetting Egyptian takeover of Libya.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/29/2012 @ 11:49 am….another thought:
I hope Tom Donilon is putting his affairs in order.
AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92) — 10/29/2012 @ 11:51 amHe has a very good chance of being prosecuted for his (probable) complicity in the deaths of these four men, and being found civilly liable for their “wrongful deaths”, when Teh Won drops all of the responsibility on his desk for what went wrong.
Plus, he’s an incompetent National Security Advisor to boot – which is why political-hacks should be barred from that office.
Make him prove he’s incompetent, indifferent and lazy.
Obama’s actions indict him.
AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92) — 10/29/2012 @ 11:52 am457. Newsweek October 29, 2012 p 22-24/Daily Beast online Oct 22, 2012 1:00 AM EDT says that they were getting (contradictory) information from (different people in?) the government of Libya:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/10/21/truth-behind-the-benghazi-attack.html
Newsweek also says:
The State Department, monitoring the phone calls from the consulate’s operations center, knew virtually from the first minutes, as Ubben, Stevens, and Smith were hiding, that the attack on the consulate was no protest gone astray. And when a major CIA outpost nearby came under attack hours later, there was little doubt about that being an operation by well-trained terrorists.
So nobody had this idea of a protest that day. Of course Obama et al hadn’t seen the beginning.
Newsweek mentions the CIA people not originaly sent:
In fact, the closest crack combat unit, described by State Department officials as a six-man “quick-reaction security team,” was only about a mile away at the CIA annex. But by the time it arrived accompanied by 16 Libyans, the consulate villa was burning and the ambassador seemed to have disappeared.
The next thing Newsweek says is that the compound was still full of attackers, and the Libyans in the rescue team started to insist that “it’s time to leave. We’ve got to leave.”
And they took Smith’s body with them, driving through a hail of bullets impacting the windows and explosives thrown under the tires.
Sammy Finkelman (a1f34f) — 10/29/2012 @ 11:56 amDown Low is offended we would accuse him of a coverup:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/10/obama-denies-benghazi-coverup-says-hes-very-offended-by-suggestion-he-misled-public-obama-did-nothing-as-us-officials-died/
Excuse me Sir, as I was about to say when you interrupted, I think you are rather homely for a gay prostitute bastard spawn, but I admire your ability to affect a Negro accent.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/29/2012 @ 11:57 am“…the news they were getting from the fledgling government in Libya was crazily contradictory…”
Who you going to believe, me (State Dept/Predator video), or your lying sycophants within the Libyan “Government”?
All three of them need to be stood up against a wall.
AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92) — 10/29/2012 @ 12:08 pmThose Saudi intelligence officials are just trying to lead us astray for some reason, or something.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/29/2012 @ 12:08 pmWe don’t have any details, really..
Just fragementary facts. Maybe a chronology can be put together.
Comment by Sammy Finkelman — 10/29/2012 @ 11:01 am
I think it’s a good idea for Sammy to work on a chronology.
Dana (292dcf) — 10/29/2012 @ 12:11 pmNewswwek/Daily Beast: Was Benghazi Attack on U.S. Consulate an Inside Job?
You have to click to get this as a single page, but the single page appears to have no separate URL
The story of the night America lost its first ambassador since 1979 to violence is like a jigsaw puzzle—the pieces are fitting together slowly and the picture is emerging but is still not complete and might not be for months……When one tries to piece together the story of what happened in Benghazi, discrepancies stand out. For one thing, the timing of events given by officials in Washington, Tripoli, and Benghazi don’t quite match. The State Department timeline is at variance with the recollection of Libyans manning the Benghazi combined operations room, a coordinating center between the various revolutionary militias “approved” by the government, located a 10-minute drive from the U.S. consulate. The Libyans have the attack starting between 8:30 and 9 p.m. The Americans place it at about 9:40 p.m. The Libyans have the American security guards fleeing the consulate with the body of Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith, one of the four Americans killed that night, in an armored SUV 45 minutes to an hour earlier than the Americans do, at around 10 p.m.
There are other inconsistencies, one especially bewildering. The State Department says a six-man Rapid Reaction Force was dispatched from the CIA compound, 1.2 miles away from the consulate, as the assault on the mission unfolded. Militia commanders in the Benghazi operations room that night—housed in the barracks of the Feb. 17 militia on the Tripoli Road, a former army installation that had a grim Gaddafi-era reputation—say they have no knowledge of such a force being present at the consulate…..
Maybe because they shot at them.
…But there are other holes in the story. No one has come up with a definitive explanation of how armed militants managed to gain entry to the consulate’s six-acre compound so easily—which is critical to figuring out whether the Benghazi attack was an inside job.
Early reports suggested the gates might have been blown open. But none of the gates show any evidence of this…..So maybe the militants scaled the compound’s walls, instead….On three sides, the compound is surrounded by high, breeze-block walls ranging from eight to nine feet, depending on the level of the ground. The walls are topped off by concertina wire. But the fourth wall is lower, more of a fence, and could easily have been vaulted that night without the four armed Libyan or five American diplomatic security guards noticing until the assailants had moved through the orchards of fruit trees. U.S. State Department briefers say the diplomatic security agent manning the CCTV monitors raised the alarm when he saw armed men already pouring through the compound.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/10/28/was-benghazi-attack-on-u-s-consulate-an-inside-job.html
Sammy Finkelman (a1f34f) — 10/29/2012 @ 12:12 pmThis entire f…up falls under the “I’m the smartest guy” scenario laid out by The Lightworker back in the ’07-’08 campaign when he described himself as his own best political analyst, etc.
AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92) — 10/29/2012 @ 12:12 pmSammy, if you check I think you will find that Libya doesn’t use Daylight Savings Time, which would account for the one-hour discrepancy that you note between the accounts of those in DC (fight started at 9:40pm vs. 8:30-9:00). This is one of the problems of using local time for msg time-stamps. Back in the pre-Marconi era when I worked in USAF Intell (read NoSuchAgency), all comms were timestamped GMT (Zulu time), as was all mention of time internally in reports. That way, there was never any confusion about what time we were talking about.
AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92) — 10/29/2012 @ 12:18 pmThis is beginning to remind me of a season finale of “Burn Notice”.
htom (412a17) — 10/29/2012 @ 12:18 pmWell, someone needs to get “burned” over this.
AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92) — 10/29/2012 @ 12:23 pmThe Newsweek/Daily Beast article is far from complete but at least it has moved the Benghazi story into a wider audience at an important time. Interestingly, besides Lake, the other authors appear to be foreign based journalists doing the work American “journalists” won’t. I scanned the comments and the commenters there at the site are pretty brutal. Especially to Biden for his “we knew nothing” jive at the VP debate and the blatant lies about the “video” being the catalyst as opposed to the symbolic 9/11 date being the catalyst.
elissa (6b23b9) — 10/29/2012 @ 12:26 pmSF: We don’t have any details, really..”
Comment by daleyrocks — 10/29/2012 @ 11:33 am
Except for the live video feeds from the consulate which you apparently claim were provided by the Saudis
No, no, they didn’t do that. The perpetrators (someone said that’s a word only for criminal acts, but I think it’s noncomittal) supplied Sooper Sekrit intelligence so that the idea of protest was added to the version of events the Administration had. This was done through the CIA.
There have been some leaks about what the live feed showed but no good information and now…
Senaor McCain said on Face the Nation
Sammy Finkelman (a1f34f) — 10/29/2012 @ 12:29 pmSOOPER SEKRIT INTELLIGENCE !!!!!!!!
JD (436368) — 10/29/2012 @ 12:35 pmWhy would they be top secret?
Because they reveal the complicity of higher-ups in DC in this disaster.
AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92) — 10/29/2012 @ 12:36 pmomment by daleyrocks — 10/29/2012 @ 11:33 am
and later Saudi drone feeds and communications from the CIA annex which were channeled through the Saudis.
No, it’s all the other information that came, directly or indirectly, from the Saudis (including bribed members of the Libyan government)
One thing is clear: Obama started out referring to this as an act of terror and he told 60 Minutes on Sept 12, alhough CBS didn’t broadcast this until Friday, October 19 (this is a Rush Limbaugh link, I suppos there might be a transcript of this on CBS somewhere)
It was only later in the week that the this story came out about there being a demonstration in Benghazi. That’s why Romney got all off track in the second debate, because the Administration hadn’t started out this way. It took loads of Sooper Sekrit intelligence to get them to come out with that story.
Sammy Finkelman (a1f34f) — 10/29/2012 @ 12:50 pmIf you think this is impossible, how many times has a doctor, confronted with a puzzle, settled on a diagnosis that ignored some glaring facts?
Sammy Finkelman (a1f34f) — 10/29/2012 @ 12:52 pmLike Obama told 60 Minutes – the order was never to protect our people – just to evacuate them.
Notice here also that Obama vows to get Americans out safe, and says nothing about fighting anybody.
Sammy Finkelman (a1f34f) — 10/29/2012 @ 12:55 pm“There have been some leaks about what the live feed showed but no good information and now…”
Sammy – Well, we do have the October 9 evening State Department briefing of reporters, excluding Fox of course, the evening before congressional testimony and the congressional testimony itself, plus leaked information, but other than that, nothing except Saudi-controlled Libyan government propaganda.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/29/2012 @ 12:57 pmAnd they took Smith’s body with them, driving through a hail of bullets impacting the windows and explosives thrown under the tires.
Not only are you not entitled to your own facts, you’re not entitled to impose your own Technicolor Cinerama dreamscape on the world.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/29/2012 @ 1:00 pmhow many times has a doctor, confronted with a puzzle, settled on a diagnosis that ignored some glaring facts?
Ironically, that is the ONLY thing that prevents me from making certain comments.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/29/2012 @ 1:00 pm“Like Obama told 60 Minutes – the order was never to protect our people – just to evacuate them.”
Sammy – Just evacuate them, dead or alive!
Except at the point he gave the 60 Minutes interview they had already been evacuated from Benghazi, so he had that going for him. Who was he talking about?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/29/2012 @ 1:02 pmKevin.M.–I have no idea if it’s true or not, but in fairness, Sammy did quote the “hail of bullets…explosives thrown under the tires” directly from last week’s Oct.22 Newsweek article.
elissa (6b23b9) — 10/29/2012 @ 1:27 pmDoc, when I was in no one ever accused me of being someons special.
But the whole point, I gathered, standing enless watches and spending day on end at sea which added up to years, was to respond to contingencies.
Point the pointy end of the boat at the objective and just go.
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/29/2012 @ 1:31 pm#
“And they took Smith’s body with them, driving through a hail of bullets impacting the windows and explosives thrown under the tires.”
Comment by Kevin M — 10/29/2012 @ 1:00 pm
Not only are you not entitled to your own facts, you’re not entitled to impose your own Technicolor Cinerama dreamscape on the world.
That’s almost an exact quote from Newsweek/Daily Beast. (October 29, 2012, page 24, right above the white space break in the left hand column, and Oct 22 1:00 ET Daily Beast, end of the 16th paragraph)
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/10/21/truth-behind-the-benghazi-attack.html
Not only are you not entitled to your own facts, you’re not entitled to impose your own Technicolor Cinerama dreamscape on the world.
These are not my facts, these are the facts of Jamie Dettmer, Christopher Dickey and Eli Lake, and I didn’t particularly endorse them.
To sort of paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, you can’t go with the facts you want, you can only go with the “facts” you’ve got.
I left out the part about this being an armored vehicle, and the fact there were five of them. (what happened to the 6th man? Was that Smith? Or did one stay behind?)
Sammy Finkelman (a1f34f) — 10/29/2012 @ 1:33 pmThe account of what was said when Stevens’s body was found (it is on video) has been questioned (the translation has. Newsweek has the first version, the same as the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/world/middleeast/video-appears-to-show-libyans-retrieving-envoys-body.html?_r=0
I was suspicious that maybe he had been taken out alive (because they could not find his body earlier) interrogated (by people pretending to be friends, to get some names or locations of people he could trust) and strangled (because Libyan doctors reported some problem with his airways and did not think he was dead at first) but I don’t know.
Sammy Finkelman (a1f34f) — 10/29/2012 @ 1:44 pmFrom that Sept 17, 2012 New York Times article: (it’s got a few things I missed)
What have I been telling you about this story about there being a protest about a video coming from the perpetrators? Here it is not so much a separate protest, as their motive, but
That is the ultimate source of ALL the Sooper Sekrit intelligence the CIA had about this starting with a protest about a video.
This Sooper Sekrit intelligence really did exist – it was not invented in the White House.
Why anyone should have believed that rather than their U.S. government’s own real time information is another question.
Sammy Finkelman (a1f34f) — 10/29/2012 @ 1:57 pmActually the two versions were combined by Susan Rice, although she stuck to the key point that this was not planned in advance, but decided on only after protests had begun in Cairo and Benghazi.
Sammy Finkelman (a1f34f) — 10/29/2012 @ 2:01 pmSammy- bless your heart. Obviously this Benghazi story fascinates and intrigues you as it does all of us.
Are you familiar with the phrase “hogging the microphone”? Do you know what that phrase means?
elissa (6b23b9) — 10/29/2012 @ 2:06 pm) interrogated (by people pretending to be friends,
That cracked me up.
JD (436368) — 10/29/2012 @ 2:28 pmInstead of a chronolgy, Sammy should work on learning the difference between a n excuse and a motive.
SPQR (a53bac) — 10/29/2012 @ 2:32 pmComment by daleyrocks — 10/29/2012 @ 1:02 pm
Sammy – Just evacuate them, dead or alive!
He said get our folks out safe so that presumably means alive.
Except at the point he gave the 60 Minutes interview they had already been evacuated from Benghazi, so he had that going for him. Who was he talking about?
The people in Benghazi. He didn’t say he had succeeded in getting them all out safe, just that it was his first priority. As a matter of fact, two more were killed.
Newsweek says that Obama ordered warships to sail and special forces to get ready. Who presented him that plan, or what kind of a plan it was, or agaisnt what contingency, we don’t know.
Now here is something interesting – perhaps an attempt to kill the remaining Americans in Benghazi:
Sammy Finkelman (a1f34f) — 10/29/2012 @ 2:32 pmComment by SarahW — 10/27/2012 @ 6:11 pm
Sandy is no moon landing but the press seems very willing to ride out the storm, til after election day, anyway. IYKWIM.
All the television and radio on the East Coast anyway.
Governor Cuomo told people that if the wind gets too strong they should stay away from windows and doors. It’snot strong here.
They again try to say how terrible are the people who didn’t evacuate some place on Long Island. They could lose first responders – and they did lose a vehicle.
Sammy Finkelman (a1f34f) — 10/29/2012 @ 2:37 pmI’m going outside now. In the not so bad weather. I will take an umbrella, although it maybe is not needed.
You might perhaps expect me to be carried up like Mary Poppins and what’s his name the chimney sweep.
Sammy Finkelman (a1f34f) — 10/29/2012 @ 2:42 pm“Are you familiar with the phrase “hogging the microphone”? Do you know what that phrase means?”
elissa – Sammy has needs.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/29/2012 @ 2:48 pmSammy, thanks for using the quote function. It makes your comments more readable. It’s noticed and appreciated.
Dustin (73fead) — 10/29/2012 @ 2:49 pmI agree with Dustin about Sammy’s use of the quote function but I can’t handle reading his comments anymore. My brain is going to turn to mush.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/29/2012 @ 2:56 pmI used to really blather on and on in my comments, so I can’t cast any stones.
Dustin (73fead) — 10/29/2012 @ 3:06 pmIt seemed obvious at the tim, but it’s important that it was confirmed
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/29/early-briefing-on-libya-strike-focused-on-al-qaeda-before-story-changed/
narciso (ee31f1) — 10/29/2012 @ 3:12 pmSorry, I didn’t see the link at 6:53 am.
narciso (ee31f1) — 10/29/2012 @ 3:13 pmDustin,
I don’t object to the length of Sammy’s comments. I simply can’t follow his logic. But that’s my failing, not his.
PS — I posted this on the wrong thread, which shows just how mushy my brain has become. I need a break.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/29/2012 @ 3:23 pmHere in Philly the earlier forecast was winds 20-40 mph with occ. gusts to 50, now its 30-50 with occ. gusts to 70, but there hasn’t been rain more than a good summer thunderstorm . Lots of roads blocked with downed trees.
Jersey shore is quite another thing.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/29/2012 @ 3:26 pmDRJ – eat a handful of ‘shrooms and chase them with half a bottle of absinthe, and the unerring logic will reveal itself.
JD (436368) — 10/29/2012 @ 3:26 pmI’m going outside now. In the not so bad weather. I will take an umbrella, although it maybe is not needed.
You might perhaps expect me to be carried up like Mary Poppins and what’s his name the chimney sweep.
He does have his charm, this Sammy Finkleman.
Dana (292dcf) — 10/29/2012 @ 3:31 pmI just heard McCain on Hewitt about Benghazi. 2008 would have been a different election had he been as he was tonight. Hugh started out playing a clip where the one talked about “being offended” by those saying they weren’t telling the story or didn’t do enough, etc…
McCain promptly replied well I and all of the US veterans are offended by him…he doesn’t belong as CIC…whether by gross incompetence or misleading the American people or what, he doesn’t deserve to be commander of our forces..
“What does he need to investigate? Does he think that we all don’t know he said day after day it was a spontaneous mob when it wasn’t.”
Yes, he and Graham and Ayote and others will have the various people up before them under oath. Whether or not the MSM want to give it adequate coverage it isn’t going to go away.
It sounded like he wanted to spit nails, no polite my friend Obama tonight gang..
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/29/2012 @ 3:33 pmNot fit to be CIC. print it.
I once found Sammy helpful in providing good links, but anymore he just puts up too much for me to deal with.
Of course I’ve never been accused of being concise myself.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/29/2012 @ 3:35 pmUh oh, just heard a (small) tree branch fall on the roof.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/29/2012 @ 3:37 pmThe thing about 100+ year old houses is they often have 100+ year old trees around them, which look real nice when there isn’t a heavy wind…
I would personally enjoy a coffee and a chess game with Sammy. Some formats reward musing and creativity more than others. And I have a hard time understanding some people if I can’t see their face.
One of these days we need to have a meet up in Dallas or Austin for Patterico readership.
Dustin (73fead) — 10/29/2012 @ 3:39 pmStay safe, MD.
Dustin (73fead) — 10/29/2012 @ 3:39 pm522. They’re finally going to talk ’bout him as tho he’s a dog. Past time.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/29/2012 @ 3:40 pmComment by Dustin —
JD and I have tentatively said it will be in Chicago at the college hockey double header in Soldier field… although I guess maybe some of the Texas and CA folk really don’t want to be outside in Chi in February…wimps.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/29/2012 @ 3:42 pmMoving to a room with no windows facing the wind from the N-NE. Bye for now.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/29/2012 @ 3:43 pm@ MD,
The thing about 100+ year old houses is they often have 100+ year old trees around them, which look real nice when there isn’t a heavy wind…
I live in the same kind of neighborhood. But in this mid-80 degree weather, no chance of any of century old oaks toppling. We’re very thankful.
Dana (292dcf) — 10/29/2012 @ 3:51 pmWe have a huge burr oak in our front yard, some in the back, some maples, ash, birch … and some volunteer poplars, one of which fell — gently — on our house a month ago. It didn’t do much damage, the hardest part of the cleanup was hauling all of the twigs out of the lawn.
htom (412a17) — 10/29/2012 @ 4:03 pmYou might perhaps expect me to be carried up like Mary Poppins and what’s his name the chimney sweep.
Comment by Sammy Finkelman — 10/29/2012 @ 2:42 pm
We can only hope!
peedoffamerican (ee1de0) — 10/29/2012 @ 4:22 pmKevin.M.–I have no idea if it’s true or not, but in fairness, Sammy did quote the “hail of bullets…explosives thrown under the tires” directly from last week’s Oct.22 Newsweek article.
Then I owe Sammy an apology. Sometimes I don’t read all of his posts.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/29/2012 @ 4:41 pmSo was Gen. Ham relieved or not? And if so, what had he done that it was done in this fashion, rather than the usual ceremony with people being invited to attend, …?
Crowd has to learn to keep their lies straight. Kinda late for that (which may have been then proximate cause of this disaster.)
htom (412a17) — 10/29/2012 @ 5:11 pmWell it’s sort of like when Rumsfeld announced that Shinseki would not be renominated as Chief of Staff, in favor of Schoomaker, it’s sort a gentle nudge
narciso (ee31f1) — 10/29/2012 @ 5:14 pm“interrogated (by people pretending to be friends”
Comment by JD — 10/29/2012 @ 2:28 pm
That cracked me up.</I.
Rescuers. Except, maybe they need to know a place to take him…
Sammy Finkelman (52d790) — 10/29/2012 @ 5:48 pmSo was Gen. Ham relieved or not?
What I have read and heard was that he was scheduled to be replaced before the Sept 11 incident took place.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/29/2012 @ 7:35 pmThis report says General Ham is retiring.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/29/2012 @ 7:44 pmPerhaps General Ham will be free to comment about what happened in Benghazi after he retires.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/29/2012 @ 7:45 pmSo was Gen. Ham relieved or not?
Yes, he was relieved… relieved to not be working for this CinC anymore…
Colonel Haiku (a5f959) — 10/29/2012 @ 7:52 pmHis scheduled replacement was in March … 2013.
htom (412a17) — 10/29/2012 @ 7:53 pmrimshot…
Colonel Haiku (a5f959) — 10/29/2012 @ 7:53 pmI checked what this “Burn Notice” was about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burn_Notice
What’s the resemblance?
Sammy Finkelman (52d790) — 10/29/2012 @ 8:13 pmYes, Sammy its about a group of covert operators, abandoned by their govt, who have to live by their wits.
narciso (ee31f1) — 10/29/2012 @ 8:21 pmI’m glad to see a few more places questioning a coverup.
SF Gate: Now ask yourself this: If George W. Bush were president, and the press didn’t know what he did on the evening of the Benghazi attack, do you think there would be the same focus in the media? I think we know the answer.
Boston Herald: Benghazi raises serious questions about the president’s competence, integrity, and honesty. And it reveals more clearly than ever before Obama’s reflexive impulse to blame, rather than defend, America.
Dana (292dcf) — 10/29/2012 @ 8:30 pmI suspect you’d have to watch it, Sammy. It’s a constant stream of small and large setups and betrayals, each episode frequently ending with shootings and large explosions, ongoing battles with real bad guys that end by solving some of the season’s problem and revealing yet another part of the long-running puzzle.
Fiona: Can we shoot them?
htom (412a17) — 10/29/2012 @ 8:35 pmMichael: No.
Fiona: Well, then, can we blow them up?
Michael: No.
Sam (over): Fiona, we have to
Fiona (over): They’re getting away. We have to stop them!
htom- do you have any idea as to the authenticity of the running dialogue in “Burn Notice”? Or would you have to kill me if you told me?
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/29/2012 @ 8:37 pmHtom – love Fiona. Gabrielle rocks.
JD (436368) — 10/29/2012 @ 8:39 pmThat’s the intro to every show, then they do ‘previously on burn notice scenes
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0810788/quotes
Fiona’s the IRA explosives expert, hence her preferred choices, Michael is former Delta, CIA,
narciso (ee31f1) — 10/29/2012 @ 8:44 pma MacGyer type with all sorts of material, Sam is
a former Seal, who usually runs the more elaborate
scams
__________________________________________
SF Gate: Now ask yourself this: If George W. Bush were president,
I saw a snippet of the New Yorker (or was it New York magazine?) about 2 days ago that dealt with the New York Times endorsement of Obama. Even though the writer of that item (and certainly the publication he or she is employed by) likely agreed with the editorial, I did sense a a bit of snark from him or her along the lines of “big whoop” and “and is the Pope Catholic?”
Even though the San Francisco Chronicle operates out of Liberalville, and is in an industry with runaway liberalism, are there at least glints of sanity and bits of less absurd partisanship in the middle of all that?
As a conservative, I can’t imagine being so dogmatic, so doctrinaire, so extreme that if a Republican president were pulling the kind of bilge that Obama has done or is doing, that I would still be blindly loyal to him.
If anything, I recall being quite irritated with Romney a few months ago when, even after he was in the spotlight for displaying, in effect, poor manners (by being similar to a guest at a party who bad mouths the host), he still didn’t pull back from sniping at the Brits for not providing better security for their Olympic games. But that’s child’s play compared with the crap swirling around Obama.
Mark (66bba6) — 10/29/2012 @ 8:49 pmM.D. in Philly — it’s fiction, I was doing it from memory (and didn’t it do well.) I think of Fiona as an eager 2LT, Michael as a tired GSGT, Sam as a frustrated MAJ trying to manage them.
If you want to watch, start at the beginning. There’s an ongoing plot, as well as the season and episode plots.
htom (412a17) — 10/29/2012 @ 9:19 pmhtom- thanks for the reply, let me clarify (I’ve seen the show once or twice).
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/30/2012 @ 7:07 amI imagine it was fiction in the plot details, but throughout there is a an overlapping narrative about how an intelligence person would think and plan an operation. My question is whether any of that is what you would really learn in “CIA 101”, or just so much BS, or where in the spectrum from one to the other.
I don’t know. When I was a kid my engineer – architect Explorer Post Scoutmaster had served in the OSS as a drop-in (parachute) bridge and building demolition designer; he told us a lot of tales of how things were done then, trying to teach us not to be gullible fools. I haven’t blown myself up, yet. He was going to write a book about it but hasn’t (or it got only limited circulation, or published under another name, ….) There are lots of books, fiction and nonfiction, about or including “spy tradecraft”. Michael isn’t doing anything I haven’t seen there; some of it is a bit creative, some of the cellphone modifications they do with a paperclip … I think it’s a little harder than that, unless someone’s making cellphones designed to have that done. The how-to-think, though, seems spot-on. People haven’t changed much since a long ago, the same cons and scams, just new paint.
htom (412a17) — 10/30/2012 @ 7:25 amComment by htom — 10/30/2012 @ 7:25 am
Thanks for your thoughts.
trying to teach us not to be gullible fools.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/30/2012 @ 7:33 amWe could use more of this.
This Washington Times article supports MD in Philly’s thoughts that the military was the weak link here. Essentially, it says this was General Ham’s decision to stand down because he didn’t have many assets or a quick reaction force and the back-up wasn’t immediately available, plus it was too hard to differentiate friend from foe. That’s a sad postscript for our military.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/6/2012 @ 6:28 amI’m surprised because AFRICOM was designed, to deal with this eventuality
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/05/ansar-al-sharia-s-role-in-benghazi-attacks-still-a-mystery.html
narciso (ee31f1) — 11/6/2012 @ 6:31 amDRJ – a sad postscript for their leadership.
JD (318f81) — 11/6/2012 @ 6:31 am