U.S. Ambassador and three others killed in Libya.

More information, this from FoxNews. I'll be interested to see if any other news agencies corroborate this.

CIA operators were denied request for help during Benghazi attack, sources say

Quote:

---

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 on the annex itself was denied by the CIA chain of command -- 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.

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

If this is true, the only reason anyone at the consulate survived looks to be because CIA operators ignored orders to stand down and evacuated them...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

More information, this from FoxNews. I'll be interested to see if any other news agencies corroborate this.

CIA operators were denied request for help during Benghazi attack, sources say


If this is true, the only reason anyone at the consulate survived looks to be because CIA operators ignored orders to stand down and evacuated them...

---

Or...

The Libyan SpecOps team?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

If true, damning. If false, just more scare-mongering by Murdoch news

---

What isn't immediatly rectified is usually true no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

What isn't immediatly rectified is usually true no?

---

Fox exists on its own planet and reports to those inhabitants; I'll wait for a news organization to report.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny

Fox exists on its own planet and reports to those inhabitants; I'll wait for a news organization to report.

---

Fox news ain't so bad, it are their opinion programs that are off

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Fox is kind of famous for large scale deception during the Bush years. They have no credibility on their own, although they have been making strides.

---

They don't seem all that bad compared to others, thing is that if you use them as a scource here you will be stripped of your pipe and sandals, your beard will be shaved and your sociology-degree will be shredded because that's neinneinnein-territory aka not done. But the news-crew seems pretty professional they usually have it right.

Someone please show me any news source without bias?

Likely if you cite one it will only show your own biases.

Nothing at all on the BBC or Guardian about it, there is a piece on the Telegraph which was done two weeks ago saying the CIA had intel that militants did it, not a mob.

But that is old-news stuff from then. Nothing anywhere recently about CIA being denied support.

The Fox news article is going on about "Exclusive", so I am guessing they got superdupersecretinfo that no one else in the world has access too. I guess inventing stories is a sure way to fire up the Republican propaganda machine.

Sorry, but this whole thing is beginning to have a whiff of trutherism about it.

Consider that intel is almost always conflicting, and rarely, if ever, 100% clear.

Consider that to prove the Republican case, you need to establish that there was overwhelming and clear evidence, to which the admin had access in the first week.

Consider that the sitting Prez name-checked terrorism in his first announcement, and then declared the attack to be a terrorist act 24 hours later. (So the whole "who hit the 'terrorism' button first" thing is a bit of a non-starter for anyone who isn't on Fox and Friends.)

Consider how much time and energy Drudge, Limbaugh, Daily Caller, Fox News, and the rest of the conservative-media-complex have spent on this subject in the last month. Then compare to how much traction the conspiracy theory is gaining in the public sphere.

And then carry on as you see fit.

What conspiracy theory are we talking about exactly? That the administration was reducing diplomatic security in Libya over the objections of people on the ground leading up to the anniversary of 9/11? Or is it that the administration continued to attribute it to a poorly made anti-Islam film when there was no evidence to support that claim? Or are you talking about something else entirely?


Edit:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Consider how much time and energy Drudge, Limbaugh, Daily Caller, Fox News, and the rest of the conservative-media-complex have spent on this subject in the last month. Then compare to how much traction the conspiracy theory is gaining in the public sphere.

---

For the record, I posted one link to FoxNews- the others are well-sourced. Here's an AP story from Saturday- the AP isn't generally considered part of the right-wing echo chamber.

The Obama administration has sent out muddled messages whether it was a planned attack or a mob protest that got out of control. A day after the attack, President Barack Obama referred to "acts of terror." He told CBS' "60 Minutes" in an interview aired the following Sunday that he believed those involved "were looking to target Americans from the start."

Within 24 hours of the attack, both the embassy in Tripoli and the CIA station chief sent word to Washington that it was a planned militant attack. Still, days later, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice, said the attack began as a spontaneous protest over the film.

The best case for the Obama administration is that the attacks and their incoherent public responses to it are due to incompetence- the reasons can only get uglier from there. But as you say, carry on as you see fit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

What conspiracy theory are we talking about exactly? [...]

The best case for the Obama administration is that the attacks and their incoherent public responses to it are due to incompetence- the reasons can only get uglier from there.

---

Self-answering post is self-answering.

So... Obama administration incompetent = conspiracy theory?

I'm sorry, I thought "the reasons can only get uglier from there." Dum-dum-DUM!

If you follow the conservative-media-complex, you would think that nothing but Benghazi has happened in the last month. You would believe it is the ultimate scandal destined to pull down the mighty tower of corruption and incompetence that is the Obama administration. You would see a frenzied conservative base desperately overplaying a weak hand, in other words.

Apparently every incompetent scoundrel from the Bush 43 admin believes that Beghazigate is a get-out-of-jail-free card as well. Witness FEMA's old director, Michael Brown, using it to ... do something or another.

Former FEMA director Michael Brown, who was heavily criticized for the agency's failure to prepare for Hurricane Katrina, has criticized President Obama for responding to Hurricane Sandy too early.

In an interview with Denver Westword, Brown said, "One thing [President Obama's] gonna be asked is, why did he jump on [Hurricane Sandy] so quickly and go back to D.C. so quickly when in ... Benghazi, he went to Las Vegas? Why was this so quick? ... At some point, somebody's going to ask that question."

Brown said the president may have had a more positive effect had he waited until Sunday afternoon to address the storm instead of holding a press conference that morning.

Brown's insinuation that Obama responded too early is a gutsy move considering his role in the 2005 disaster. Brown, who was famously called "Brownie" by President George W. Bush, was seen as a symbol of government failure to protect and evacuate people from the path of Katrina.

Remember when this was the republican party had redemptive qualities like being the anti slavery party? Me neither.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

In an interview with Denver Westword, Brown said, "One thing [President Obama's] gonna be asked is, why did he jump on [Hurricane Sandy] so quickly and go back to D.C. so quickly when in ... Benghazi, he went to Las Vegas? Why was this so quick? ... At some point, somebody's going to ask that question."

---

Priceless. Too bad it wasn't televised.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I'm sorry, I thought "the reasons can only get uglier from there." Dum-dum-DUM!

---

I'm willing to withhold judgement on the "Who knew what when & why wasn't help sent in faster?" portion of this debacle- there could be a lot of explanations for it and many could be perfectly reasonable.

What speaks to incompetence is that they had Susan Rice & Jay Carney telling the media that the attack was a result of protests gone wild when there was little evidence of that in the first place and they continued peddling that line long after it proved false. If you're sending a surrogate out to give the administration's line on the Sunday news shows, why wouldn't you make sure they have the latest information?

The bigger issue however, is why on earth the administration thought it was a good idea to pare down diplomatic security in Libya and try to replace it with paramilitary militias, like the Feb17 Matyrs Brigade? They had a steady stream of intel that showed a deteriorating security situation in Benghazi- including a bombing that blew a 12 foot hole in the wall of the consulate on June 6. The British closed their diplomatic mission in Benghazi because it was so unsafe there- we cut security... :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

For the record, I posted one link to FoxNews- the others are well-sourced. Here's an AP story from Saturday- the AP isn't generally considered part of the right-wing echo chamber.

---

also:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-...ack/?tag=socsh

Quote:

---

In the days after the assault, counterterrorism officials expressed dismay over what they interpreted as the Obama Administration's unwillingness to acknowledge that the attack was terrorism; and their opinion that resources which could have helped were excluded.

Counterterrorism officials from two agencies said they concluded almost immediately that the attack was by terrorists and was not spontaneous. "I came to this conclusion as soon as I heard the mortar rounds were impacting on top of the building our people were occupying," says one. "The position of the mortar must be plotted on a map, the target would have to be plotted, computations would be calculated that would result in the proper mortar tube elevation and the correct number of powder bags to be attached to the rounds."

---

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...978_story.html

Quote:

---

The attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi has become a political football in the presidential campaign, with all the grandstanding and misinformation that entails. But Fox News has raised questions about the attack that deserve a clearer answer from the Obama administration.

---

Anyway, with the media its "pick your echo chamber".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I'm willing to withhold judgement on the "Who knew what when & why wasn't help sent in faster?" portion of this debacle- there could be a lot of explanations for it and many could be perfectly reasonable.

---

We probably won't know for a long time :shrug:

Quote:

---

What speaks to incompetence is that they had Susan Rice & Jay Carney telling the media that the attack was a result of protests gone wild when there was little evidence of that in the first place and they continued peddling that line long after it proved false. If you're sending a surrogate out to give the administration's line on the Sunday news shows, why wouldn't you make sure they have the latest information?

---

I think a bigger part of it is that they really think its important to tell americans that stuff like the video is bad and to show muslims that they are condemning it. They believe that has real value. That would probably have been their response to just the cairo protests. And since they didn't want to talk about the libya attack really they just talked like the would have if it had just been the cairo protest.

Apparently, almost two months after the attack, you can still wonder into the site and pick up sensitive documents that are lying around.... The folks at Foreign Policy did.

Quote:

---

More than six weeks after the shocking assault on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi -- and nearly a month after an FBI team arrived to collect evidence about the attack - the battle-scarred, fire-damaged compound where Ambassador Chris Stevens and another Foreign Service officer lost their lives on Sept. 11 still holds sensitive documents and other relics of that traumatic final day, including drafts of two letters worrying that the compound was under "troubling" surveillance and complaining that the Libyan government failed to fulfill requests for additional security.

When we visited on Oct. 26 to prepare a story for Dubai based Al Aan TV, we found not only Stevens's personal copy of the Aug. 6 New Yorker, lying on remnants of the bed in the safe room where Stevens spent his final hours, but several ash-strewn documents beneath rubble in the looted Tactical Operations Center, one of the four main buildings of the partially destroyed compound. Some of the documents -- such as an email from Stevens to his political officer in Benghazi and a flight itinerary sent to Sean Smith, a U.S. diplomat slain in the attack -- are clearly marked as State Department correspondence. Others are unsigned printouts of messages to local and national Libyan authorities. The two unsigned draft letters are both dated Sept. 11 and express strong fears about the security situation at the compound on what would turn out to be a tragic day. They also indicate that Stevens and his team had officially requested additional security at the Benghazi compound for his visit -- and that they apparently did not feel it was being provided.

---

Why on earth haven't they secured/destroyed this stuff already? Perhaps it's for the best since it's pretty much the only way we're getting this information....

what about the supposed 300 million dollars worth of cuts to security that have been alluded to?

I could look it up, but Im drunk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Why on earth haven't they secured/destroyed this stuff already? Perhaps it's for the best since it's pretty much the only way we're getting this information....

---

Nuke the site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.

Quote:

---

what about the supposed 300 million dollars worth of cuts to security that have been alluded to?

I could look it up, but Im drunk

---

Don't all administrations have a go at cutting embassy security - until the next disaster strikes? No one really cares about the Inman Report until bombs go off.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...tack?page=full

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

Nuke the site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.

---

Or maybe secure the site while the intel people gather and/or destroy the documents that are just lying around.... :idea2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-...ack/?tag=socsh

---

I read that CBS article last night- it's very damning in that it shows how inept and indecisive the response to the attacks were... Not using the systems and personnel that are in place to deal with attacks... telling the hostage rescue team to get ready to deploy, then stand down, then get ready to deploy, then stand down, ect...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...091c_blog.html

From september 12th, regarding the rose garden speech:

Quote:

---

KROFT: Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya Attack, do you believe that this was a terrorist attack?
OBAMA: Well it’s too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

OBAMA: Well it’s too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.

---

WHY DOES HE HATE AMERICA?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

WHY DOES HE HATE AMERICA?

---

Because he hates freedom?

Foreign Policy takes a smackdown stick to y'all. (Obviously, Middle East experts hate freedom too.)

What about Benghazi? In retrospect, I suspect that the intense focus on Benghazi hurt Romney more than Obama. I suspect that most voters quickly recognized Benghazi for the Republican pseudo-scandal it always was, and received it at roughly the same wavelength as Donald Trump demanding a birth certificate. The prospect of a hammer blow to bring down the incumbent enemy may have thrilled the base, but the very fact of its identification with Fox News and the right wing bubble limited its ability to travel farther. So did the fact that it fairly clearly was not a "scandal" of any significance. Yes, the tragic deaths revealed serious, relatively low-level, issues with inter-agency coordination and communication, and more major issues about intelligence and the changing nature of al-Qaeda's strategy and organization. But it was never the scandal which Republicans so desperately wanted it to be, nor Libya the failure so many believe it to be. Hopefully the real issues can now be addressed outside of the partisan frenzy.

At the same time, by sucking up an unbelievable amount of the air in the foreign policy debate, Benghazi crowded out a much more serious debate which might have taken place about Syria, Egypt and the Arab spring.

Well, the Accountability Review Board has released its report on the Benghazi attacks. And it's pretty damning. I could sum up the findings as "inadequate security, inadequate intel, and inadequate leadership".

Quote:

---

“The Board found that certain senior State Department officials ... in critical positions of authority and responsibility in Washington demonstrated a lack of proactive leadership and management ability appropriate for the State Department’s senior ranks,” the report concludes in its section on accountability of personnel.

---

The findings start around page 29. The timeline of attack precedes it and is pretty harrowing.

This will likely have a negative impact on any future political ambitions that Hillary Clinton may have had. Resignations at the State Dept have already begun.

Seems like a good time to necro this thread.... Some new reporting from ABC....

Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions, Scrubbed of Terror Reference

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ABC News

When it became clear last fall that the CIA’s now discredited Benghazi talking points were flawed, the White House said repeatedly the documents were put together almost entirely by the intelligence community, but White House documents reviewed by Congress suggest a different story.

ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.

White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department. The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.

That would appear to directly contradict what White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said about the talking points in November.

---

Remember to just keep telling yourselves that it's all a partisan GOP witch hunt... nothing to see here. :creep:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Remember to just keep telling yourselves that it's all a partisan GOP witch hunt... nothing to see here. :creep:

---

Also please remember that Benghazi is ten times bigger than Watergate and Iran Contra put together. For reals!

“I believe that it’s a lot bigger than Watergate, and if you link Watergate and Iran-Contra together and multiply it times maybe 10 or so, you’re going to get in the zone where Benghazi is,” says Rep. Steve King, R.

Or to put it a little more straightforwardly: "Vee are nihilists, vee believe in nah-zing."

http://youtu.be/Y5J_kao6mwA

-edit-

Oh, look, Karl Rove's group, Crossroads, already has a Benghazi-themed ad out slamming HC. Nothing creepy about that, no sir. Remember kids: We must hold nine or ten hearings about Benghazi because maybe the Dems used it for political gain (in a completely unclear manner—nobody seems to be able to answer the basic question, cui bono?). But if you jump all over Benghazi for political gain and you happen to be Republican, that's okay, because you are a patriot and you cry bald eagle tears and love 'Murica.

http://youtu.be/DqFtEtpy9G8