Benghazi - the gift that keeps on giving

[Nemesis 1]

"The investigation is ongoing." We dont know what direction(s) were given to the CIA, either directly or indirectly.

Thats OK these Demons have to hang on to lies its the only truth they know

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Isn't it amazing how much we knew about details of Osama's death within 48 hours and how little we know about Benghazi nearly 2 months after the fact?

 

[Nemesis 1]

What's the point of this article besides fear-mongering. We all knew about the attack 2 hours after it happened, so what? The only people who's making a fuss about this whole thing are conservative attention whores. Even Romney is letting the topic rest because he realized he had no ammunition with it.

Romney left it alone. Because he not throwing dirt like obummer is . Romney doesn't have to talk about . Many many others are doing it for romney . Obummer has to throw dirt its the only talking points he has . I watched his speech last nite . The Blacks were even bored . Throwing dirt is all he has . Talking about his record gets him booted from white house

 

[Nemesis 1]

Isn't it amazing how much we knew about details of Osama's death within 48 hours and how little we know about Benghazi nearly 2 months after the fact?

Only to us that have minds to think with . Obummer traitor and chief . I hope he loses and is tried for treason

 

[Pens1566]

Isn't it amazing how much we knew about details of Osama's death within 48 hours and how little we know about Benghazi nearly 2 months after the fact?

One had live video feed and all involved parties returning alive. The other didn't. Not that amazing.

 

[TerryMathews]

One had live video feed and all involved parties returning alive. The other didn't. Not that amazing.

Both had live feeds.

 

[Pens1566]

Both had live feeds.

And this is incorrect.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

One had live video feed and all involved parties returning alive. The other didn't. Not that amazing.

Don't kid yourself. This administration knows exactly what happened in regard to their reponse as information became available.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Isn't it amazing how much we knew about details of Osama's death within 48 hours and how little we know about Benghazi nearly 2 months after the fact?

Driven by political needs.

And then when more details started to trickle out about OBL; the Obama administration immediately went into attack mode when the stories did not line up with the official version.

 

[EagleKeeper]

One had live video feed and all involved parties returning alive. The other didn't. Not that amazing.

They had a drone over Benghazi also sending back data. Maybe not from the initial attack but soon enough to allow options to be formed.

The final option was that American lives were worth sacrificing in order to not offend the host country.

 

[TerryMathews]

And this is incorrect.

So an UAV is not considered a live feed?

 

[Pens1566]

So an UAV is not considered a live feed?

It was hours into the attack, was not continuous, and was not seen by the president. They myth being used and repeated is just that. Myth.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/nov/02/world/la-fg-benghazi-attack-20121103

 

[Todd33]

The final option was that American lives were worth sacrificing in order to not offend the host country.

That's pretty ironic considering OBL and Pakistan for all of Bush's tenure.

 

[Incorruptible]

obama didn't do anything since he doesn't want to offend muslims. He supported the rebels from the start

 

[Fern]

Say what? They "do not confirm" it? OK? Do they confirm water is wet and the sun rises in the east?

The relevant issue is do they contradict it? If so, please provide specific quotes denying "the response effort was handled by the most senior national security officials in governments" and that " Members of the CSG" were involved. I saw people complaining that the full CSG wasn't convened, or that they personally weren't included, but nobody denied the claims I quoted. If you see something different, let's see the specifics.

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

He said "they" were not called upon, not "most of them" were not called upon.

"The response process was isolated at the most senior level," says an official referring to top officials in the executive branch. "My fellow counterterrorism professionals and I (were) not consulted."

This guy is clearly claiming no one in the group was consulted.

Aside from the guy you/re relying on, the rest claim the CSG were not consulted. However, I don't see any evidence the reporter let all these others know about that one guy's claim some were involved and allow them to respond. That's why I chose my wording as I did.

In a similar vein, you've yet to address my challenge about the testimony provided to Congress. You've insinuated that testimony is quite damning to the administration, yet once again you've neglected to document specifics. Consequently, it's just more meaningless hand-waving, something this thread has way too much of already. I offered several specific examples from the testimony I read. As one of the few conservatives here who actually uses his head, I was looking to you to do the same. Please fill in the blanks and back your claims with specific, factual information. TIA.

I saw it on TV and have been unable to locate a transcript, but here's an article:

(Edit: Looks like transcripts can be found here: http://oversight.house.gov/hearing/the-security-failures-of-benghazi/ )

The State Department's former point man on security in Libya told a congressional hearing Wednesday that his superiors worked against him as he tried to get more help for the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi in the months before it was overrun in a deadly terror attack.

Eric Nordstrom, the one-time regional security officer, told the House Oversight Committee that he had a disheartening conversation with the regional director of the agency's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs when he requested additional manpower for the facility.

"I said, 'Jim, you know what makes it most frustrating about this assignment? It's not the hardships. It's not the gunfire. It's not the threats. It's dealing and fighting against the people, programs, and personnel who are supposed to be supporting me," Nordstrom said.

He also told the State Department officer, "'For me, the Taliban is on the inside of the building."

As the four-hour hearing drew to a close, Nordstrom divulged he had verbally asked for significantly more help -- 12 agents -- but the officer from the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs had rebuffed his request.

"His response to that was, 'You're asking for the sun, moon, and the stars,'" Nordstrom said.

That attitude made the Benghazi incident predictable, according to Nordstrom, who left Libya in July and continues to work at the State Department for diplomatic security.
------------
But Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, a Utah National Guardsman who was a site security commander in Libya from February through August, testified that the regional security officer -- it was unclear if he was talking about Nordstrom -- tried to obtain additional personnel, but "was never able to attain the numbers he felt comfortable with."

"The security in Benghazi was a struggle and remained a struggle throughout my time there," Wood said. "Diplomatic security remained weak. In April, there was only one U.S. diplomatic security agent there."

Of course, higher ups in the State Dept think security was fine:

His colleague, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Programs Charlene Lamb, added that the State Department "had the correct number of assets in Benghazi at the time," drawing a sharp rebuke from committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa, R-California.

Following the hearing the State Dept held press briefing:

On Tuesday, two senior State Department officials provided reporters with the most detailed explanation yet of the attack in Benghazi, saying on a conference call that there was no prior indication such an assault was imminent.

The officials, who briefed reporters on condition of not being identified by name, said there was "nothing unusual" throughout the day of the attack.

No "prior indication" and "nothing unusual" sure as heck sound like no demonstration by an angry mob. No need to take my word for it, a reporter asked the question directly:

Asked whether the attack was a spontaneous assault taking advantage of a demonstration, as originally asserted by Obama administration officials, one senior official said, "That was not our conclusion."

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/10/politics/congress-libya-attack/index.html

I don't have audio on my PC so video is useless to me. But, assuming you do, I expect you can easily find video is your interested.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

Isn't it amazing how much we knew about details of Osama's death within 48 hours and how little we know about Benghazi nearly 2 months after the fact?

Amazing, yes. Surprising, no.

Most transparent administration in history - but only on those few instances when it helps me politically.

 

[zinfamous]

Isn't it amazing how much we knew about details of Osama's death within 48 hours and how little we know about Benghazi nearly 2 months after the fact?

is it?

really?

Both had live feeds.

explain.

I need a clear timetable. We already know that the first drone was redirected two hours after the attack began, and was in "some other part of Libya". Another was sent in ~40 minutes after that.

How long was the attack on the embassy? How long did it take the drone to get there? What was actually possible to see during the time the drone was actually in the area?

 

[zinfamous]

They had a drone over Benghazi also sending back data. Maybe not from the initial attack but soon enough to allow options to be formed.

The final option was that American lives were worth sacrificing in order to not offend the host country.

Oh, you know this? certainly not a statement injected with assumptive biased.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Oh, you know this? certainly not a statement injected with assumptive biased.

There were no other options executed.
The admin chose to sacrifice American lives so as to not offend the host country.by sending in any military force of any type.

Then afterwards, the admin states that those responsible will be brought to justice.

When did that happen?

They also start apologizing for a film. Why, it was not authorized, funded or distributed by the government.

 

[TerryMathews]

I need a clear timetable. We already know that the first drone was redirected two hours after the attack began, and was in "some other part of Libya". Another was sent in ~40 minutes after that.

How long was the attack on the embassy? How long did it take the drone to get there? What was actually possible to see during the time the drone was actually in the area?

Those are good questions. I would like them answered too. I doubt that will ever happen.

 

[EagleKeeper]

I need a clear timetable. We already know that the first drone was redirected two hours after the attack began, and was in "some other part of Libya". Another was sent in ~40 minutes after that.

How long was the attack on the embassy? How long did it take the drone to get there? What was actually possible to see during the time the drone was actually in the area?

Those are good questions. I would like them answered too. I doubt that will ever happen.

That information is available but controlled.

If it supported the admin, it would have been released by now in time for the election.

 

[DominionSeraph]

The admin chose to sacrifice American lives so as to not offend the host country.by sending in any military force of any type.

There are other countries in the world too, you know. Unilaterally sending combat troops to invade a city in a sovereign nation because, "There's some crime being committed against an American there," shows disrespect for nation status and sets up that any American visitor has the potential to be bait for an invasion. Countries that host our troops would then have to decide whether they want to be associated with the actions of such uncontrollable, indiscriminate strike teams.

You wouldn't accept other countries invading the US, so why would you think that other countries would accept such actions from us?

 

[EagleKeeper]

There are other countries in the world too, you know. Unilaterally sending combat troops to invade a city in a sovereign nation because, "There's some crime being committed against an American there," shows disrespect for nation status and sets up that any American visitor has the potential to be bait for an invasion. Countries that host our troops would then have to decide whether they want to be associated with the actions of such uncontrollable, indiscriminate strike teams.

You wouldn't accept other countries invading the US, so why would you think that other countries would accept such actions from us?

Do you see mobs attacking and killing citizens from other countries here in this country.

We accept the responsibility of protecting foreign diplomats and honoring diplomatic soil.

Libya and Egypt both did not.

As such; we should do so.

We never set foot in the Soviet embassy and the soviets did not set foot in the US embassy during the Cold War. Diplomats may be expelled but not taken hostage or killed.

When countries try to do or allow that; the attacked country has not tolerated it. Except for the US; which bends over as to not offend anyone.

We have the embassies and diplomats violated now on Carter's watch and on Obama's watch. Neither accomplished anything as to response. At least Carter tried. Obama provided lip service and apologized for the wrong reason.

We will hold those accountable and bring them to justice!

 

[werepossum]

There are other countries in the world too, you know. Unilaterally sending combat troops to invade a city in a sovereign nation because, "There's some crime being committed against an American there," shows disrespect for nation status and sets up that any American visitor has the potential to be bait for an invasion. Countries that host our troops would then have to decide whether they want to be associated with the actions of such uncontrollable, indiscriminate strike teams.

You wouldn't accept other countries invading the US, so why would you think that other countries would accept such actions from us?

There's the proggie view in a nutshell - respecting other nations is more important than American lives, even ambassadors.

 

[TerryMathews]

There are other countries in the world too, you know. Unilaterally sending combat troops to invade a city in a sovereign nation because, "There's some crime being committed against an American there," shows disrespect for nation status and sets up that any American visitor has the potential to be bait for an invasion. Countries that host our troops would then have to decide whether they want to be associated with the actions of such uncontrollable, indiscriminate strike teams.

You wouldn't accept other countries invading the US, so why would you think that other countries would accept such actions from us?

Google "Julian assange + embassy" and tell me if you still think you're right.