NYTimes: Al-Qaeda not behind Bengahzi attacks (video in part to blame)

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
ROFLMFAO!! Its a sad time in America when people can't get their facts straight years after the event. Jesus Christ you are really really really ignorant.

News refresher, the ambassador was dead within one hour of the attack starting due to smoke inhalation. Why are conservative the MOST uninformed people on the planet. You would think they would spend some time to at least gain a cursory knowledge of the facts before spouting off their inanities. You can't come within a country mile of cogency when you build from a foundation of idiocy.


http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/06/politics/benghazi-attack-timeline/
I don't think we know the actual cause of death at this time.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/stevens.asp

As of this writing, the U.S. government has still not released any post-mortem information documenting the nature of Ambassador Stevens' death.

Last updated: 18 August 2013

Al Qaeda weapons expert: U.S. ambassador to Libya killed by lethal injection

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...s-expert-us-ambassador-libya-killed/?page=all
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
The NYT article would once again dispute your opinions on this. On what sources are you making such a judgment?
The NYT article can dispute whatever it wishes, but it cannot change the fact that our allies knew there was going to be an attack. Even assuming this knowledge did not come from us, we clearly have the ability to watch CNN at the highest levels of government, so clearly we as a nation knew there was going to be an attack. NYT can assert that the attack was not "carefully planned" and that the attackers were not "really" al Qaeda, but the fact remains that we knew there was going to be an attack and yet we did nothing - unlike our allies who took no casualties because they honored the threat. (Which incidentally was and is Ansar al-Sharia, not al Qaeda per se.) There had been many attacks against Americans and Brits well before the video was even screened. The Susan Rice-led narrative was that of a spontaneous uprising because that excused everyone - can't be held responsible for not predicting a spontaneous uprising - but even the NYT article posits a run-up of several days, twelve hours' surveillance directly before the attack, and numerous attacks in the months before. At best, the video was used as an additional source of agitprop in an organized attack.

The NYT article is rather muddled - which is not unexpected considering that no arrests have been made and therefore the "investigative report" can be nothing more than guessing who was involved and why they were involved. It states that "Western diplomats who watched said they were stunned by the scale and weaponry of the display [in the Islamacist parade]" yet exhibits no curiosity why, should that be the case, Hilary was not demanding that Obama provide Marines. Incidentally, deterrence is one major benefit of Marine embassy guards. Civilian Americans have to appear unarmed during the twelve hour surveillance; Marine embassy guards are fully armed and in uniform, obviously ready to fight back. This is why such groups do the surveillance in the first place, to ensure that they hit soft targets rather than clashing head on with Marines. One Marine platoon and there's probably no attack; one Marine company and there's definitely no attack. Even a squad might have prevented the attack, and certainly would have had a GTH plan to evacuate the ambassador.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
A proper American security detail would keep attackers at bay, preventing them from setting fire to the compound, and would also have multiple go-to-hell plans for such contingencies in case they happen. You run drills on how to get the VIPs out of danger in a variety of threat situations. And the death of the two ex-military contractors shows that the leadership in the area did a piss-poor job all around, having no ability to affect the six-hour fight beyond allowing a couple of civilians to go on their own. That MIGHT go back to Obama (with or without a good reason) and probably does go back to Hilary, but it's probably unknowable. Either we can't be told due to classified operations (and at this point no one would believe them if they did say that anyway) or we won't be told due to politics.

Another possibility is a complete breakdown between State and Defense in understanding the available assets' capabilities. It's possible that State assumed Stevens did not need a security team because there was a CIA/Special Forces base so near, without understanding that their capabilities and personnel were quite limited. The CIA's habitual secrecy would have played into that.

Or maybe you're just wanking the conspiracy theory, playing the game of Blaming Obama! any way you can fabricate.

I'll take accusation by conjecture for $1000, Alex.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Jesus Christ, listen to yourself. We have more people killed in school shootings in our own country with even longer response times from law enforcement. Shit happens, get the fuck over it already. The only scandal in this whole incident is the Republican muck-raking, which has been malicious, false, repulsive and downright embarrassing.
Yeah - I don't think we've ever had "even longer response times from law enforcement" considering that weeks afterward we had not even secured the remaining classified files.
 

BUnit1701

Senior member
May 1, 2013
853
1
0
Jesus Christ, listen to yourself. We have more people killed in school shootings in our own country with even longer response times from law enforcement. Shit happens, get the fuck over it already. The only scandal in this whole incident is the Republican muck-raking, which has been malicious, false, repulsive and downright embarrassing.

Please, reference the school shooting where police didn't show up until 6 hours later. I'll be waiting.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
I don't think we know the actual cause of death at this time.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/stevens.asp

Al Qaeda weapons expert: U.S. ambassador to Libya killed by lethal injection

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...s-expert-us-ambassador-libya-killed/?page=all
Bizarre that they haven't released cause of death, but that claim is equally bizarre.

Or maybe you're just wanking the conspiracy theory, playing the game of Blaming Obama! any way you can fabricate.

I'll take accusation by conjecture for $1000, Alex.
LO Yah got me, I'm "playing the game of Blaming Obama! any way you can fabricate" by specifically not blaming Obama.

Someone has played a cruel trick on you. There is no reward for being the Most Stupid Person on the Internet - which must be devastating to learn after having so thoroughly nailed it.
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126
One has it that the video, which was posted on YouTube, inspired spontaneous street protests that got out of hand. This version, based on early intelligence reports, was initially offered publicly by Susan E. Rice, who is now Mr. Obama’s national security adviser.
Blaming a video for violence, what's next blaming a woman for getting raped because of what she was wearing at the time?
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
Jesus Christ, listen to yourself. We have more people killed in school shootings in our own country with even longer response times from law enforcement. Shit happens, get the fuck over it already. The only scandal in this whole incident is the Republican muck-raking, which has been malicious, false, repulsive and downright embarrassing.

You will never understand because you have your head buried so far up Obama's ass that every time you hear him speak you think it is the word of God so you never doubt what he says.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Bizarre that they haven't released cause of death, but that claim is equally bizarre.
Agree that lethal injection is a bizarre claim...however, I linked that to underscore my point...we still don't know squat 16 months after the fact regarding the actual cause of death. Contrast this with our administration's zeal to release minute details of OBL's death within weeks...it makes one wonder.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
FWIW, a Democratic Congressperson (from CA, IIRC) who is a member an intelligence committee was on TV downplaying the veracity of the NYT article.

Fern
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
FWIW, a Democratic Congressperson (from CA, IIRC) who is a member an intelligence committee was on TV downplaying the veracity of the NYT article.

Fern
The head of the House Intelligence Committee was doing the same yesterday...but, damn the luck, he just so happens to be a Republican.

"...vague, unsourced declarations by politically motivated actors is not very compelling evidence to me." - eskimospy
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,009
55,448
136
The head of the House Intelligence Committee was doing the same yesterday...but, damn the luck, he just so happens to be a Republican.

"...vague, unsourced declarations by politically motivated actors is not very compelling evidence to me." - eskimospy

So are you saying that you do find vague, unsourced declarations by politically motivated actors compelling? Or did you find his comments not vague, not unsourced, or did you think he was not politically motivated?

Those seem like the only options.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
Bizarre that they haven't released cause of death, but that claim is equally bizarre.


LO Yah got me, I'm "playing the game of Blaming Obama! any way you can fabricate" by specifically not blaming Obama.

Someone has played a cruel trick on you. There is no reward for being the Most Stupid Person on the Internet - which must be devastating to learn after having so thoroughly nailed it.

Yeh, it was clearly Hillary's fault, & maybe Obama's viewed from a propagandist's 20/20 hindsight perspective of conjecture. Coulda, shoulda, woulda puts you anywhere you want to be, right?
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,848
10,162
136
Its a sad time for this country when a ambassador and his body guards are gunned down in a 6 hour gun fight Gets turned into a filthy repug/dimocrat finger pointing political pile of shit.

Anything this administration touches will be covered in lies and filth.

The Benghazi controversy is their reaction to that day's events, and their blatant dismissal of terrorism to the point where it became a Presidential campaign issue where a CNN moderator jumped in and lied to cover for the President.

It's the administration's blaming of the American people, via youtube video, for that terrorist attack and their blatant stonewalling and covering of who is responsible for these lies. These actions of theirs, crimes against truth, transparency, and investigation, are worthy of impeaching the entirety of the executive branch.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Agree that lethal injection is a bizarre claim...however, I linked that to underscore my point...we still don't know squat 16 months after the fact regarding the actual cause of death. Contrast this with our administration's zeal to release minute details of OBL's death within weeks...it makes one wonder.
It is a stark contrast, but UBL's death was an unabashed win for Obama. By contrast, this is a cluster fuck with no possible up side where any information will be seized by the Pubbies and used against him. He probably figures he can tough it out for another few years. Alternately, there may be something horrific, such as Stevens being tortured to death, that would hurt the family AND hurt Obama whether or not he really bears any blame.

Anything this administration touches will be covered in lies and filth.

The Benghazi controversy is their reaction to that day's events, and their blatant dismissal of terrorism to the point where it became a Presidential campaign issue where a CNN moderator jumped in and lied to cover for the President.

It's the administration's blaming of the American people, via youtube video, for that terrorist attack and their blatant stonewalling and covering of who is responsible for these lies. These actions of theirs, crimes against truth, transparency, and investigation, are worthy of impeaching the entirety of the executive branch.
President Biden. That is all.

Granted, Crowley's stance was abhorrent (though not unexpected) but I don't think it's fair to describe the Obama administration's stance as a "blatant dismissal of terrorism". Obama did use the word pretty quickly, even as Rice was spinning the spontaneous uprising yarn. And Romney (who was my guy) was spinning just as hard. I think basically Team Obama wanted a pretty lie which would stand up (with the connivance of the mainstream media) just long enough to get him through the election. Had they made up something out of whole cloth I'd be pretty pissed, but they took one part, made it as undamaging as possible, and spun that. I don't like it but Team Romney was doing basically the same thing, making it sound as bad for Obama personally as possible. How can I be outraged at one side (especially the side with whom I'm predisposed to disagree) and not the other?
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
For the record, in spite of factual information being provided here multiple times, almost everything you say below is wrong:
The conspiracy theory came about mostly from the fact that we knew there was going to be an attack, the CIA warned of an attack, our allies knew there was going to be an attack,
False, false, and more false. The attack alert was for our embassy in Cairo. That's in Egypt, by the way, not Libya.


our allies closed down their missions to avoid taking casualties because they knew there was going to be an attack,
False. They had withdrawn from Benghazi because of at least two previous attacks against foreign officials. One was an attack on a vehicle, I don't remember the circumstances of the other. Yes, Benghazi was known to be becoming a dangerous place. No, were no specific warnings of upcoming attacks.


we left our ambassador with no guard
False. There were security forces for our Benghazi mission, and we spent millions of dollars upgrading security there, though they were clearly not adequate for this attack ("unprecedented" in its ferocity and duration, according to sworn Congressional testimony). The sixteen men who were not extended were for the embassy in Tripoli, not Benghazi. Let's also remember that the Republican House cut State's security budget request.


and no QRF capable of intervening,
Apparently true, at least given the circumstances of this attack. The question you've never answered, however, is if such forces are common for our hundreds of overseas facilities. It is easy with 20/20 hindsight to see the need in Benghazi, but we have lots of people scattered in dangerous places around the world. Without such hindsight, what would it cost to have sufficient forces positioned everywhere, ready to respond to anything and everything? Is that even feasible, or do we have to be realistic and accept that bad things sometimes happen?


and then when our guys were murdered someone in the government strong-armed the official story into a spontaneous reaction to an obscure Internet video - something no one could possibly have predicted ahead of time. That cover-up is obviously Team Obama who needed an excuse for not preventing this that would remain plausible for a couple weeks until the election is over. ...
Lulz! Nice conspiracy theory, empty speculation posturing as fact. Speaking of which, the very first draft of the CIA talking points stated right up front that this attack appeared to be related to prior demonstrations about that video. The New York Times investigation corroborates this initial report. I know that doesn't fit the RNC propaganda war, but them's the breaks.

Finally, "obscure" Internet video? More lulz, RNC revisionist history at its finest. The prior demonstrations spawned by this video were front page news in the U.S., and were reportedly even bigger news in the Middle East. There was nothing obscure about it.
 
Last edited:

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
For the record, in spite of factual information being provided here multiple times, almost everything you say below is wrong:

False, false, and more false. The attack alert was for our embassy in Cairo. That's in Egypt, by the way, not Libya.

False. They had withdrawn from Benghazi because of at least two previous attacks against foreign officials. One was an attack on a vehicle, I don't remember the circumstances of the other. Yes, Benghazi was known to be becoming a dangerous place. No, were no specific warnings of upcoming attacks.

False. There were security forces for our Benghazi mission, and had spent millions of dollars upgrading security there, though they were clearly not adequate for this attack ("unprecedented" in its ferocity and duration, according to sworn Congressional testimony). The sixteen men who were not extended were for the embassy in Tripoli, not Benghazi. Let's also remember that the Republican House cut State's security budget request.

Apparently true, at least given the circumstances of this attack. The question you've never answered, however, is if such forces are common for our hundreds of overseas facilities. It is easy with 20/20 hindsight to see the need in Benghazi, but we have lots of people scattered in dangerous places around the world. Without such hindsight, what would it cost to have sufficient forces positioned everywhere, ready to respond to anything and everything? Is that even feasible, or do we have to be realistic and accept that bad things sometimes happen?

Lulz! Nice conspiracy theory, empty speculation posturing as fact. Speaking of which, the very first draft of the CIA talking points stated right up front that this attack appeared to be related to prior demonstrations about that video. The New York Times investigation corroborates this initial report. I know that doesn't fit the RNC propaganda war, but them's the breaks.

Finally, "obscure" Internet video? More lulz, RNC revisionist history at its finest. The prior demonstrations spawned by this video were front page news in the U.S., and were reportedly even bigger news in the Middle East. There was nothing obscure about it.
So your position is that there were so many attacks that our allies left, but we had no clue there would be another. On freakin' 9-11. M'kay . . .

There were two civilians in another part of the compound and some Libyan recruits. Everyone knew the Libyans are not going to fight Libyans in the best of circumstances - even the NYT article admits this. And if you think it takes hindsight to figure out that a US ambassador needs American military guards in Benghazi, after multiple attacks . . .

As far as an obscure video, absolutely no Libyan is going to find that video by himself. The video was used repeatedly by terrorist groups like Ansar al-Sharia to drum up fighters to attack Westerners. If a terrorist group like Ansar al-Sharia uses the video as motivation for an attack they are planning for weeks if not months, an attack that features day-long surveillance & heavy weapons, it is not a spontaneous uprising, period.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
So your position is that there were so many attacks that our allies left, but we had no clue there would be another. On freakin' 9-11. M'kay . . .
Don't be so willfully dishonest. Your claim was we were warned. Your claim is false. We have attacks all over the world, the vast majority of which do NOT happen on September 11. Yes, it's easy emotionally to put two and two together in hindsight, but the simple fact is we had no specific warnings that this attack would happen at that specific facility on that specific day.


There were two civilians in another part of the compound and some Libyan recruits. Everyone knew the Libyans are not going to fight Libyans in the best of circumstances - even the NYT article admits this. And if you think it takes hindsight to figure out that a US ambassador needs American military guards in Benghazi, after multiple attacks . . .
More hindsight. It clearly wasn't nearly enough in retrospect. The question remains whether we had reason to know in advance that such an "unprecedented" attack was likely in Benghazi. The factual answer you refuse to accept is no, we had neither the specific intel nor the prophetic abilities to know this in advance.


As far as an obscure video, absolutely no Libyan is going to find that video by himself. The video was used repeatedly by terrorist groups like Ansar al-Sharia to drum up fighters to attack Westerners. If a terrorist group like Ansar al-Sharia uses the video as motivation for an attack they are planning for weeks if not months, an attack that features day-long surveillance & heavy weapons, it is not a spontaneous uprising, period.
So is it your story then that the previous (relatively peaceful) demonstrations elsewhere in the Middle East were also organized by terrorist groups? Why weren't they equally violent? Let me guess; they were a ruse so we'd drop our guard, amirite? (By the way, did you know that Middle Eastern countries also have things like television, email, social media? Arab Spring ring a bell? Sorry Sally, your partisanship is showing. Lulz!)



Edit: and for the record, you've failed to even try to justify most of your false talking points that I debunked. Does that mean you'll stop using them, or are you just going to wait for the next thread and repeat those same tired lies again?
 
Last edited:

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Don't be so willfully dishonest. Your claim was we were warned. Your claim is false. We have attacks all over the world, the vast majority of which do NOT happen on September 11. Yes, it's easy emotionally to put two and two together in hindsight, but the simple fact is we had no specific warnings that this attack would happen at that specific facility on that specific day.

More hindsight. It clearly wasn't nearly enough in retrospect. The question remains whether we had reason to know in advance that such an "unprecedented" attack was likely in Benghazi. The factual answer you refuse to accept is no, we had neither the specific intel nor the prophetic abilities to know this in advance.

So is it your story then that the previous (relatively peaceful) demonstrations elsewhere in the Middle East were also organized by terrorist groups? Why weren't they equally violent? Let me guess; they were a ruse so we'd drop our guard, amirite? (By the way, did you know that Middle Eastern countries also have things like television, email, social media? Arab Spring ring a bell? Sorry Sally, your partisanship is showing. Lulz!)

Edit: and for the record, you've failed to even try to justify most of your false talking points that I debunked. Does that mean you'll stop using them, or are you just going to wait for the next thread and repeat those same tired lies again?
No, my claim is that we knew another attack was coming and could surmise that 9-11 would make a very likely date, NOT that we were warned. Everyone knew another attack was coming. Benghazi was the epicenter of a violent struggle between the secularists and the Islamists, and besides the fact that the Islamists' default mode is attacking us, we were intentionally the soft underbelly of the pro-democracy forces.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/10/benghazi-attack-testimony-state-department
Hours before the hearing, the state department was forced into an embarrassing retreat on its claim that the attackers used the cover of a popular protest outside the consulate as cover for the assault. Officials acknowledged on Tuesday that there was no protest and that as it occurred on September 11 it was likely timed to mark the anniversary of al-Qaida's assault on the US 11 years ago.

The former head of embassy security in Libya, Lieutenant Colonel Andrew Wood, said that he recognised the situation in Libya was volatile and that he and other officials pressed for additional agents to protect the consulate in Benghazi.

"The security in Benghazi was a struggle and remained a struggle throughout my time there … Diplomatic security remained weak,'' he said. "The RSO (regional security officer) struggled to obtain additional personnel there, but was never able to attain the numbers he felt comfortable with."

The committee chairman, Darrel Issa, then released state department cables not previously made public containing the requests for more security including one from the then ambassador to Libya, Gene Cretz.

Another official, Eric Nordstrom, who was responsible for protecting US diplomats in Libya, said that he too sought additional resources. But he said he was told over the phone by a senior state department official responsible for handling the request, Charlene Lamb, not to make any more because "there would be too much political cost".

After that Republican members of Congress honed in on Lamb, who was also a witness, accusing her of failing to recognise the seriousness of the threat.
Lamb responded that the requests were for more personnel in Tripoli and it would have made no difference to how many security men would have been protecting the Benghazi consulate where protection was in any case mostly in the hands of a pro-government militia.

"We had the correct number of assets in Benghazi on the night of 9/11," Lamb testified.

However, Republican attempts to accuse the state department of leaving the consulate vulnerable by refusing requests for more security were delivered a blow when Nordstrom was asked how many agents he wanted to protect the Benghazi site. He said he asked for three. The hearing then heard that there were five at the time of the attack.

Congressman Jason Chaffetz noted that after the state department declined to increase the number of security personnel it did raise the danger pay of Wood and his colleagues.

Nordstrom suggested that it might have been difficult to protect the consulate in any circumstance.

"I had not seen an attack of such ferocity and intensity previously in Libya nor in my time with the diplomatic security service," he said. "I'm concerned that this attack signals a new security reality, just as the 1983 Beirut marine barracks bombings did for the marines, the 1998 East Africa embassy bombings did for the state department and 9/11 did for our entire country."

But Nordstrom warned that it would be wrong to react to the attack and the continuing threat by retreating to a bunker.

Republican congressmen hammered away at the accusation that the state department had failed to heed warnings of an escalating threat and that officials gave "demonstrably false statements" about the circumstances of the attack.

The committee released a memo from Stevens sent on the day he was killed in which he described an array of armed militias competing for control and some of their leaders as criticising the US for taking political sides by backing the government in Tripoli. He also described growing Islamist influence in the town of Derna, to the east of Benghazi.

However the memo also reported that Benghazi council said the security situation was improving and appealed for American investment.

Nordstrom described a chaotic situation in Libya shortly after the revolution, saying that the new government had so little control that it could not provide security for diplomats and embassies.

"We could not rely on the Libyan government for security, intelligence and law enforcement help to identify emerging threats or to ask them for assistance in mitigating those threats. In Benghazi however, the government of Libya through the 17 February Martyrs Brigade was able to provide us consistent armed security since the very earliest days of the revolution," he said.

Nordstrom said that the long-term plan was to create a local force to protect the consulate.

Issa accused the administration of a cover-up of the circumstances of the attack because for days the administration stuck with the claim that the attack was made under the cover of a popular protest against an anti-Islam film.

One witness, assistant secretary of state Patrick Kennedy, defended the US ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, who has faced calls to resign for her statements in the days after the attack saying it was a response to an anti-Muslim video that prompted demonstrations across the Middle East.

Kennedy said Rice based her assertion on the best information she had at the time and hinted that it came from the intelligence services but said he could not discuss it in public.

The hearing at times degenerated into a spat over what is classified information after Chaffetz attempted to prevent Kennedy speaking about exactly who was protecting US officials and premises in Libya on the grounds he was revealing classified information. He also objected to a satellite image readily available on Google.

A Democratic member of the committee, Stephen Lynch, expressed astonishment, saying that Chaffetz had pressed for the hearing specifically to air accusations that the state department had not provided sufficient security.

The mother of one of the Americans killed in the Benghazi attack, Glenn Doherty, has accused Mitt Romney of using her son's death for political ends.

"I don't trust Romney," Barbara Doherty told a Boston television station, WHDH. "He shouldn't make my son's death part of his political agenda. It's wrong to use these brave young men, who wanted freedom for all, to degrade Obama."

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/sta...azi-warnings-learns-lessons-past-clinton-says
(CNSNews.com) – Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the federal government is taking “immediate steps to bolster security” for diplomats, but said nothing about the State Department ignoring numerous warnings about security problems in Libya in the months leading to the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi that killed four Americans.
To most folks, ignoring warnings requires that there BE warnings.

The attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya on Sept. 11, 2012 occurred after diplomats had requested more security for the compound. Terrorists killed four Americans in the attack, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

Before the attack, Stevens and Regional Security Officer Eric Nordstrom sent several requests to the State Department in Washington explaining the dangerous security situation and requesting more security. Security was actually decreased in August.

“And as we mourn fallen friends like Ambassador Chris Stevens, who was fearless in his dedication to diplomacy, we refuse to be intimidated,” Clinton continued during the Thursday speech. “Our people cannot live in bunkers and do their jobs. So we will do what we always have done: pull together, learn the lessons we must, and improve, because America always emerges stronger and more confident when we do that.”

In December 2011 Undersecretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy issued a memo requiring five security agents to be assigned to the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, according to the October 2012 testimony of Regional Security Officer Eric Nordstrom to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

In February 2012, the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, Libya requested and received a four-month extension of a 16-member security team, according to a February memo obtained by the Associated Press and reported on in October. The AP reported that the memo referred to security in Libya as a whole, not just Tripoli.

“Overall security conditions continue to be unpredictable, with large numbers of armed groups and individuals not under control of the central government, and frequent clashes in Tripoli and other major population centers,” the memo said.

The memo added, “Until these militias are off the streets and a strong national police force is established, we will not have a reliable host government partner that is capable of responding to the embassy's security needs. It is likely that we will need to maintain a heightened security posture for the foreseeable future.”

In March, Nordstrom sent a cable in March requesting additional security agents for the Benghazi post, Nordstrom told the House oversight committee. He said he was ignored.

On April 6, an IED attack occurred on the U.S. compound in Benghazi when two Libyans employed as contract guards, one of whom had been fired, threw an improvised explosive device (IED) called a “fish bomb” over the compound wall. There were no casualties and only limited damage. The suspects were arrested but not prosecuted.

On April 10, an IED attack on a United Nations envoy in Benghazi took place when another “fish bomb” was thrown at a convoy carrying the UN special envoy to Libya. No one was hurt, and no arrests were made.

On April 11, a gun battle between an unidentified armed group and forces loyal to the Transitional National Council happened about 4 kilometers from the U.S. mission in Benghazi.

The unidentified armed group attacked a Ministry of Interior building in an attempt to seize fleet vehicles that belonged to former Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddafi’s regime.

On May 22, two RPG rounds were fired at the Benghazi office of the International Committee of the Red Cross about one kilometer from the U.S. Mission in Benghazi. The attack occurred during the early morning hours, and there were no casualties. The imprisoned Sheikh Omar Abdul-Rahman Brigades, a pro-al Qaeda group, claimed credit for the attack.

On June 6, the U.S. compound in Benghazi was the target of an IED attack. The compound’s local guards reported a suspicious male placed a device on the mission’s perimeter wall and sounded the mission’s imminent danger alarm. About six minutes after the alarm sounded, the device exploded, creating a large hole in the perimeter wall. The imprisoned Sheikh Omar Abdul-Rahman Brigades claimed credit.

That same day, a pro-Gaddafi Facebook page called for the assassination of Ambassador Stevens and provided details of his jogging route.

On June 11, a three-car convoy carrying the British Ambassador to Libya was en route to the British compound in Benghazi when it came under fire from RPGs and AK-47s. The attack happened about 500 meters from the entrance of the British compound and about two kilometers from the U.S. mission.

One RPG round struck the area of the lead armored vehicle, injuring two security personnel inside. The motorcade was not flying the British flag but displayed diplomatic license plates. No suspects were identified, and no groups had claimed credit.

On June 21, a former military prosecutor who reportedly ordered the arrest of the late General Abdul Fatah Youngish, a former Gaddafi-regime security official who defected to the Libyan opposition and was subsequently killed under mysterious circumstances, was shot and killed in Benghazi.

That same day, Nordstrom sent a memo to the State Department in Washington that warned, “the risk of U.S. Mission personnel, private U.S. citizens and businesspersons encountering an isolating event as a result of militia or political violence is HIGH. The Government of Libya does not yet have the ability to effectively respond to and manage the rising criminal and militia related.”

The next day, June 22, Ambassador Stevens sent a cable to the State Department in Washington after the assassination attempt on the British ambassador, writing, “the consensus of the [emergency action committee] is continuing presence of extremist groups and individuals in Libya, which warrant ongoing monitoring by the [emergency action committee].”

On June 25, a cable from Stevens was entitled, “Libya’s Fragile Security Deteriorates as Tribal Rivalries, Power Plays and Extremism Intensify.” Stevens wrote the government of Libya “national security official shared his private opinion that the attacks were the work of extremists who are opposed to western influence in Libya.”

He said some disagreed, but “a number of local contacts agreed, noting that Islamic extremism appears to be on the rise in eastern Libya and that the al Qaeda flag has been spotted several times flying over government buildings and training facilities in Derna.” He further noted, “the proliferation of militias and the absence of effective security and intelligence services have limited the [government of Libya’s] ability to respond.”

In July, Nordstrom said he asked for additional security for the consulate in Benghazi, he told the House oversight committee. Nordstrom said he was again ignored.

On July 1, the High National Electoral Commission Offices were stormed by 100 to 200 demonstrators who ransacked the office in Benghazi and burned election materials including ballots.

In August 2012, the deployment of the 16-member security team came to an end.
Everyone should note that the Libyan recruits that proggies insist should have been guarding our ambassador carried out at least one of the attacks.

tl/dr: You debunked nothing but any lingering doubts that your head is willfully lodged inside Obama's nether regions. You insist that no one could have predicted this attack, yet the very people in charge of security DID predict it.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
No, my claim is that we knew another attack was coming and could surmise that 9-11 would make a very likely date, NOT that we were warned. Everyone knew another attack was coming. Benghazi was the epicenter of a violent struggle between the secularists and the Islamists, and besides the fact that the Islamists' default mode is attacking us, we were intentionally the soft underbelly of the pro-democracy forces.
OK, so you now acknowledge that contrary to the RNC talking points, there was no specific advance warning about an attack on our Benghazi facility on or around September 11. Instead, we had a general awareness that Benghazi was a dangerous place (as was all of Libya and much of the rest of the Middle East). Welcome to where most of us have been for many months. Great job!


Wall'o'text crits you for 2932803282034. You fall asleep.

Anything specific in there you believe supports your claims, or are you just hoping to bluff your way through this?


http://cnsnews.com/news/article/sta...azi-warnings-learns-lessons-past-clinton-says

To most folks, ignoring warnings requires that there BE warnings.
So a partisan source spreading the RNC propaganda is somehow proof that the propaganda is accurate? Really? Do you also believe OJ was innocent because he said he was innocent?

Meh, at least it provides a great example of how the nutter disinformation bubble works: keep posting the same disinformation round and round and round until the drones are fully indoctrinated through repetition.


Everyone should note that the Libyan recruits that proggies insist should have been guarding our ambassador carried out at least one of the attacks.
The only reference to this I saw in your walls of text was an April incident where two locals, one of whom had been fired, tossed a grenade over the wall of the compound. Do you have anything more, or is that weaksauce spin the best you can do?


tl/dr: You debunked nothing but any lingering doubts that your head is willfully lodged inside Obama's nether regions. You insist that no one could have predicted this attack, yet the very people in charge of security DID predict it.
Right. You evaded 90% of the inconvenient facts I offered, pulled a Baghdad Bob on the rest, and somehow I'm the one with my head up my ass? Whatever helps you sleep at night sweetie, but denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

Your original post was a giant pack of lies, no matter how vigorously you blow smoke and wave your hands. Own your duplicity instead of trying to shoot the messenger. The tragedy is Benghazi was awful enough without the slimy RNC propaganda machine then exploiting it into a series of dishonest attacks. It is a repugnant, almost traitorous example of putting party over country, and it's shameful that so many Americans are not only willing, but eager to swallow this propaganda. You are but one example.