Enter your username and password below to sign in to your PewterReport account.
Quote from: Bayfisher on October 15, 2012, 06:32:58 PMYes, 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.Quote from: Bayfisher on October 15, 2012, 06:32:58 PMYou 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.
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.
You are going to rail against Issa trying to bring down the crooked? What does that make you?
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
http://www.businessinsider.com/us-syria-heavy-weapons-jihadists-2012-10#ixzz29keeGla8That 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.