Seems there is a news topic or so missing - here's one

[Bayfisher]

Yes, my true motivations. Lmfao!  It is no secret that I think the current admin is terrible.  You act like you are figuring something out. 

I know. But apparently, you seem to think you are a moderate, so I was just taking yet another opportunity to call you on your BS.

You are going to rail against Issa trying to bring down the crooked?  What does that make you?

Issa is trying to get his party into the White House. If you think his motivations are any more altruistic than that, you are kidding yourself. The guy actually called for hearings to investigate the freaking jobs numbers and to look into the Obama administration's alleged "war on religion", for crying out loud. He's nothing more than a partisan hack, and you are justifying his antics because it suits your own political motivations.

I never said I was a moderate. I said who I was voting for because there is no other choice.  Construe as you may.  So we should all just forget all the things Issa brings up and sweep all the bad under the rug because you want to defend your vote?  I don't care what Issa is doing as long as people go to jail and the problem gets fixed.  America needs people from the other side when the corruption is as deep as it is.  Are you really this dense to not understand that no one from the Gimmedats is going to do anything but cover their asses? 

[CBWx2]

 In retrospect we know what happened, but at the time it wasn't quite so clear. The security issue is a double edged sword and a complex one - it is likely any increased security would have been in Tripoli where the main body of State Dept folks were. Based upon Chaffetz' mind-boggling statement about Kennedy using 'classified photos' (they weren't) leading to admissions that the Benghazi complex was a joint effort with 'another government agency' (which is most likely the CIA - something that we likely didn't want known), it's unclear if the additional security requested by the folks there (and recommended by Lt Col Wood) would have been there in Benghazi and not in Tripoli. Not to mention there were conflicting statements if the budget cuts had any detrimental effect on the security. During her testimony, Miss Lamb said it both was and wasn't. I suspect the truth is not so cut and dried on that end.

 I wish Issa would have done the prudent thing knowing there were areas of sensitivity and secrecy that would likely be discussed and had the hearings behind closed doors. In having it in front of the cameras, it turned into a political grandstand with several members of congress trying to score points either against the state department or other congress members. That sort of thing doesn't get the answers to the questions that need to be asked about this incident.

The most insightful and reasoned post in the thread, and widely ignored by many because it lacked the "gotcha" moment against the Obama administration that they are looking for. It's a serious issue with serious consequences, and I suspect more are at fault than a single politician or political party. But to say that those hearings were anything more than a partisan hit job designed to provide campaign fodder for the Republican ticket is laughable.

[dbucfan]

At the time the State Department was in direct contact with the consulate - watching the very same video.  And Marines are rarely confused with CIA.  The request appears to have covered Libya - no need to segregate Tripoli from Benghazi.  The comments about budget have been addressed and resolved as not being any part of the issue by Lamb and others.  The prudent thing - and interesting phrase given where this has both started and now led to.  From a tale about a video to denial, and blame of the State Department and Intelligence community.  Interesting.

[NovaBuc]

 Been away for a few days celebrating my mom's 80th birthday but wanted to comment on a few things..


 Dbuc, the quick reaction force (the seven member team stationed at the annex) wasn't Marines, it also wasn't State Department (stated several times in testimony that they were under control of another government agency). That more or less leaves CIA/NSA.. whose presence was outed by the representative from Utah unnecessarily due to him throwing a fit over a commercially available satellite photo. Also, as Lamb's testimony contradicted itself on the issue of budget cuts affecting the security I'd say that remains unsettled. In one response when asked, she responded that it wasn't, yet to another question about the budget she admits to limited resources.

 Bay, the compound is not American soil.. it's not an embassy or consulate. It's a compound used to meet with diplomats and local representatives in Benghazi.

 At this point, the fight over whether there was enough security or not is the wrong discussion to be having - any extra security likely would have been in Tripoli and likely not able to get to the compound in time based upon testimony given so far. And, as testimony by Nordstrom and Lt. Col Wood stated, the extra security they requested for the Benghazi location (there were separate requests for the two locations) likely would not have made a difference in light of the size and scope of the attack. The important questions now should be were there indications of an attack like this to be found in the intelligence leading up to the attack and who formed the idea of this attack growing out of protests over the video.

[Biggs3535]

The important questions now should be were there indications of an attack like this to be found in the intelligence leading up to the attack and who formed the idea of this attack growing out of protests over the video.

Agreed 100%.  Also, I think the question should go further than just "forming the idea" about the video.  That line was clung to by the Administration for days after the State Dept. knew it was a planned terrorist attack.

[dbucfan]

 Been away for a few days celebrating my mom's 80th birthday but wanted to comment on a few things..


 Dbuc, the quick reaction force (the seven member team stationed at the annex) wasn't Marines, it also wasn't State Department (stated several times in testimony that they were under control of another government agency). That more or less leaves CIA/NSA.. whose presence was outed by the representative from Utah unnecessarily due to him throwing a fit over a commercially available satellite photo. Also, as Lamb's testimony contradicted itself on the issue of budget cuts affecting the security I'd say that remains unsettled. In one response when asked, she responded that it wasn't, yet to another question about the budget she admits to limited resources.

 Bay, the compound is not American soil.. it's not an embassy or consulate. It's a compound used to meet with diplomats and local representatives in Benghazi.

 At this point, the fight over whether there was enough security or not is the wrong discussion to be having - any extra security likely would have been in Tripoli and likely not able to get to the compound in time based upon testimony given so far. And, as testimony by Nordstrom and Lt. Col Wood stated, the extra security they requested for the Benghazi location (there were separate requests for the two locations) likely would not have made a difference in light of the size and scope of the attack. The important questions now should be were there indications of an attack like this to be found in the intelligence leading up to the attack and who formed the idea of this attack growing out of protests over the video.

My best to you Mom - good for you to have your mom to enjoy. 

The question as to who provided security - and even if they were Americans - remained open the last I read.  My comment regarding the Marines was edited poorly by me.  Sorry for the confusion I created. 

[NovaBuc]

 Unfortunately, there is no transcript of the hearings beyond the prepared testimony but essentially the security of the compound consisted of three groups. The State Department detail of five security officers with the Ambassador, two Libyans from the local February 17 militia (normally four, have not found a good source explaining where the other two were) and a seven man quick reaction force accompanied by an unnamed number of February 17 members stationed at the annex two kilometers away. The quick reaction force is not under the control of the State Department but rather another unnamed gov't agency - I, as well as many others, are assuming CIA but I s'pose it could be another agency or a covert military team (Delta perhaps?). Some of this info is in the transcripts of the State Department phone call Dbuc's earlier post references, can find it here at the State Dept's website: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2012/10/198791.htm

 Doing some reading today, it looks like the claims about the attack being tied to the video might actually have some merit.

 NYtimes article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/world/africa/election-year-stakes-overshadow-nuances-of-benghazi-investigation.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all&

 

To Libyans who witnessed the assault and know the attackers, there is little doubt what occurred: a well-known group of local Islamist militants struck without any warning or protest, and they did it in retaliation for the video. That is what the fighters said at the time, speaking emotionally of their anger at the video without mentioning Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or the terrorist strikes of 11 years earlier. And it is an explanation that tracks with their history as a local militant group determined to protect Libya from Western influence.....

 To those on the ground, circumstances of the attack are hardly a mystery. Most of the attackers made no effort to hide their faces or identities, and during the assault some acknowledged to a Libyan journalist working for The New York Times that they belonged to the group. And their attack drew a crowd, some of whom cheered them on, some of whom just gawked, and some of whom later looted the compound.

The fighters said at the time that they were moved to act because of the video, which had first gained attention across the region after a protest in Egypt that day. The assailants approvingly recalled a 2006 assault by local Islamists that had destroyed an Italian diplomatic mission in Benghazi over a perceived insult to the prophet. In June the group staged a similar attack against the Tunisian Consulate over a different film, according to the Congressional testimony of the American security chief at the time, Eric A. Nordstrom.

At a news conference the day after the ambassador and three other Americans were killed, a spokesman for Ansar al-Shariah praised the attack as the proper response to such an insult to Islam. “We are saluting our people for this zeal in protecting their religion, to grant victory to the Prophet,” the spokesman said. “The response has to be firm.” Other Benghazi militia leaders who know the group say its leaders and ideology are all homegrown.

 SF Chronicle article: http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloomberg/article/Evidence-Points-to-Disorganized-Strike-on-U-S-3952696.php

 

Instead, accounts from U.S. intelligence officials and Benghazi residents, along with evidence in the burned-out American diplomatic compound, point to a hasty and poorly organized act by men with basic military training and access to weapons widely available in Libya....

 There is no intelligence suggesting that either the remaining core of al-Qaeda in Pakistan or its loose affiliates in Yemen and North Africa plotted, financed or directed the attack, which one of the U.S. officials described as amateurish.

Republican assertions that al-Qaeda had a hand in the attack rest in part on the ties that Muhammed Jamal abu Ahmad, a leader of Ansar al-Sharia -- the militia believed to have mounted the attack -- has (ties) to al-Qaeda in Pakistan and to its affiliates in Yemen and North Africa. However, the al-Qaeda groups learned of the assault only after one of the attackers called to boast of it, said the officials. A spokesman for Ansar al-Sharia has denied the group’s involvement...

 The types of weapons used and the level of violence don’t indicate a well-planned al-Qaeda operation either, according to the U.S. officials and the physical evidence. Rather than use a car bomb to breach the compound walls quickly, the attackers used a rocket-propelled grenade, which one U.S. official said are as easy to find as couscous in Benghazi.

 The erroneous reports of a spontaneous protest came in part from former Libyan deputy interior minister Wanis al-Sharif, who said the demonstration had been peaceful until guards at the compound started shooting, though he also blamed the violence on loyalists of fallen Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi. Al-Sharif was fired a week after the attack.

While intelligence doesn’t support Rice’s description of a spontaneous, initially peaceful protest, it does indicate that the attackers were spurred by demonstrations in neighboring Egypt against the anti-Islamic video. The Libyan extremists didn’t want to sit out a wave of anti-American protests, said one U.S. official.

Business Insider article: http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-and-romney-try-to-shape-benghazi-attacks-2012-10

 

Initially, the finger pointed at a group recently dubbed "Ansar al Shariah" (Partisans, or Soldiers of Shariah, depending on who translates). But following the attacks Ansar released a statement saying it "didn't participate in this popular uprising as a separate entity ... the brigade didn't participate as a sole entity ... rather, it was a spontaneous popular uprising."

The statement has since been corroborated by evidence on the ground. But like all statements coming from "terrorists" groups following attacks, diplomats in Washington simply replaced, or more accurately, washed it out with statements more convenient to their own domestic political ends.

 First, the film was undoubtedly related, but not solely responsible — one need only look at the concurrent riots that spread through the Muslim world as a result of the video, and also that this same group attacked an Italian consulate, in Benghazi, six years prior because a minister allegedly wore a t-shirt bearing the image of Muhammed.

Second, reports from the ground initially said that there were some protestors, while reports coming out of the state department later strongly indicated otherwise. There's even video from the BBC the night of the attack which shows citizens, in front of the burning consulate, angry over the video.
The truth is that initial reports coming out of Benghazi were rushed, scattered and inaccurate, and an administration hell bent on shaping the high-ground message simply cherry picked the best one: out of control riots.

 And while the deaths of the ambassador and the other Americans is tragic - and likely could have been prevented with a bit of prudence - the kerfluffle being raised over this is overshadowing the signs of what might be a sea change in parts of the Middle East. That being the response of the locals in Benghazi in the wake of the attack. They resoundingly denounced the attack and the murder of Ambassador Stevens - hell, they ran the militia associated with the attack out of town by overrunning their compound in the city. Not to mention that other Libyans as part of the security team tried to protect the Ambassador and the compound while another group of Libyans assisted the quick reaction force with getting the surviving Americans to safety. That should give all of us some glimmer of hope that the sacrifices made in the region might actually lead to a better understanding between the Middle East and the western world.

 Also thanks Dbuc. Lost my dad a couple of years ago when he was 81, still miss him every day so glad my mom is still around and is spry enough to enjoy her life.


 

*edited to fix quote issue

[dbucfan]

My dad has passed as well - but my mom is still very much a part of our family's life.  Share the feeling of being lucky...

As to the kerfluffle, or bump in the road, or the loss of the Ambassador - I am pretty sensitive to that as my Uncle was held that role for the US for almost 25 years. 

Reports are pretty clear that the State Department watched the same attack on the complex as those at the consulate.  They noted the weaponry as not a part a protest of a video but rather an armed attack.  And the President of Libya describing the attack as terrorism is pretty strong in segregating the activity from Egypt from that of Libya.  Add in the attack of a portion of the Libyan population appears to be a possible good sign.  I am not a big believer in the video being the basis of the arab world's riot and turmoil, as much as it has been used as an excuse by those who are not as friendly as the Libyans appear to be. 

Going to take a break here - can't seem to focus on this and the Presidential debate.  Perhaps we can chat later.  Have a good evening Nova.

Picking up - seems there is no confusion now - the President has found the attack to be a terror attack now.  Still don't know when he came to that conclusion...

[Biggs3535]

http://www.businessinsider.com/us-syria-heavy-weapons-jihadists-2012-10#ixzz29keeGla8


That might help explain why the administration was very quick to blame a stupid video, and continuing to blame a stupid video even when they knew the video had squat to do with this planned attack.

[dbucfan]

http://www.businessinsider.com/us-syria-heavy-weapons-jihadists-2012-10#ixzz29keeGla8
That might help explain why the administration was very quick to blame a stupid video, and continuing to blame a stupid video even when they knew the video had squat to do with this planned attack.

If the evaluation is correct this will be a problem.  Such activity is not on the Ambassador's list of duties... others within the Consulate might be involved - but the Ambassador needs space for plausible deniability - awkward. 

[Biggs3535]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49528284/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/?ocid=twitter#.UIdno0KcB7F

[VinBucFan]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/24/us-usa-benghazi-emails-idUSBRE89N02C20121024 

[Biggs3535]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-told-cbs-hours-after-benghazi-attack-that-he-had-su**CENSORED**ion-that-event-was-pre-planned-so-why-did-the-story-change/

[Bayfisher]

Everything is on hold until after the election.

[dbucfan]

Others seem to be interested as the Presidential election gets most of the attention - http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100186461/benghazi-will-do-to-obama-what-al-qaeda-did-to-chris-stevens/

BLOGS HOME » NEWS » US POLITICS » JAMES DELINGPOLE
James Delingpole

Benghazi and Obama: the media is trying to shore up this desperate administration
By James Delingpole US politics Last updated: October 24th, 2012
1252 Comments Comment on this article

Christopher Stevens: Obama lied; he died
Here's one thing we can be sure of about the Benghazi affair: almost everything we've been told since by the mainstream media is a lie, invariably one designed to shore up the creaky and desperate Obama administration.
Consider how quickly the story was spun by Obama's amen corner in the liberal MSM. It should, according to any objective news sense, have been a shocking tale of how a woefully unprotected ambassador was murdered in cold blood by Al Qaeda affiliates. Instead, it almost immediately became – of all things – an excuse to demonstrate why Mitt Romney was unfit to be president.
Here, for example, was NBC the day after.
Yesterday we noted that Mitt Romney, down in the polls after the convention, was   throwing the kitchen sink   at President Obama. Little did we know the kitchen sink would include — on the anniversary  of 9/11 — one of the most over-the-top and (it turns out)  incorrect attacks of the general-election campaign .
And here was CBS the day after. (Sounds to me like they have the same White House press officer dictate their stories for them…)
(CBS News) The conventional wisdom emerged in Washington almost immediately on Wednesday: Mitt Romney's handling of the violence in Egypt and Libya was a disaster.
"The comments were a big mistake, and the decision to double down on them was an even bigger mistake," Steve Schmidt, senior campaign strategist to Sen. John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign, told CBS News. "There are legitimate criticisms to be made but you foreclose on your ability to make them when you try to score easy political points. And the American people, when the country is attacked, whether they're a Republican or Democrat or independent, want to see leaders who have measured responses, not leaders whose first instinct is to try to score political points."
Er, with respect Steve Schmidt – and all those other experty experts consulted by CBS – surely what the American people REALLY want when their country is attacked is the truth. They'd also like to be assured that everything possible had been done to prevent the attack happening; that when the attack was taking place, everything possible was done to try to save the lives of the ambassador and his team and that in the aftermath, serious attempts would be made to punish those responsible, reprimand those culpable for any security lapses, and learn important lessons about why the attack happened and how to avoid further such disasters occurring in future. Little, if any of this seems to have been done.
Instead, the post-Benghazi media coverage quickly became an exercise in finger pointing designed to show that it was anyone's fault but the Obama administration's. First, the attack on Romney. Then, the attempts to deflect attention on to the poor sap who made the anti-Islam hate video (which supposedly – though not at all in fact – provoked the fatal assault in the Benghazi consulate) – as if in some way to persuade us all that, hey, the lynching of the ambassador and his staff/protection kind of wasn't that bad because, hey, we sort of invited it…..
Here in Britain, where the general understanding of Obama's manifold inadequacies is so pitifully thin that about the most vigorous criticism we're prepared to make of him is that maybe the muscle tone on his beautiful arms isn't quite so perfect as that on his immaculate and delightful wife Michelle's the Benghazi scandal hasn't had much play.
But in the US conservative media – which basically means talk radio and the internet and the Wall Street Journal – the story is snowballing. And rightly so.
Here are a few examples: this one, this one and this one courtesy of the mighty Rush. Now, even the not noticeably conservative Reuters is joining the fray with more shocking revelations.
This is a big deal.
The Obama administration's duplicity and mendacity is nothing those of us who've been observing, aghast, his disastrous foreign policy approaches since at least his infamous Cairo surrender monkey speech couldn't have predicted. And while it's nice to see his chickens coming home to roost and encouraging to realise that his chances of becoming a second-term president are diminishing by the minute, it's hardly a situation you might call – hmm what's the word? Oh yeah – "optimal" for the grieving relatives of the four men who died needlessly in order to satisfy the President's wishful thinking that the Al Qaeda threat is diminishing and that there's nothing wrong with the Middle East's intractable problems that can't be solved with a few emollient words, beautiful lies and maybe the occasional NASA-endorsed outreach programme….