Benghazi: the coverup

Agree. Someone did much worse, but in 8 years :grin:

 

More lies from the White House. I see some things are shared between political-parties. From the Daily Show video it seems so odd that the president would be sticking to the "uncertainty" theme so many days after his state secretary claimed it was a terrorist attack.

Times like this make me wonder why we have candidates debating about the Taliban in Afghanistan and not the international terrorist group that has a widespread recruiting network, proven track record of violence and no one home country where invasion ensures its defeat.

 

The Media Dropped The Ball On Benghazi

Hillary Clinton’s State Department stonewalls a victim’s mother, while tossing the White House under the bus. But is the press giving Libya big enough play?


Posted Oct 11, 2012 5:32pm EDT

The jaw-dropping testimony at the House Oversight Committee Wednesday completely shredded the Obama Administration’s original story about what happened in Benghazi, while offering damning evidence that the State Department ignored multiple, urgent requests for better security at the American outpost in eastern Libya.

“It was abundantly clear we were not going to get resources until the aftermath of an incident,” said Eric Nordstrom, a former Regional Security Office at the U.S. Embassasy in Libya,. “How thin does the ice have to get before someone falls through.”

Nordstorm testified that he'd been "fighting a losing battle" to get 12 more agents to the outpost, and was told by his superior "you're asking for the sun, moon and the stars."

The hearings also revealed deep divisions within the administration over its handling of the response in the aftermath of the tragedy. The White House stuck to the fiction that the attack was somehow caused by a ridiculous anti-Islam video, and continued to suggest there had been a protest occurring at 10 p.m. that acted as cover.

Neither of the key elements in the administration’s first draft of the Benghazi story — which, coincidentally, helped create the perception that this was a spontaneous, unforeseeable uprising rather than a preventable intelligence failure — ultimately turned out to be true.

And in the latest and most disturbing bit of news, we learned Wednesday night on “Anderson Cooper 360” that the State Department is stonewalling the mother of one of the victims, Sean Smith. (This despite the recent claims that State had the best interests of the families at heart.)

On Cooper’s show, Pat Smith said she had been personally promised information about her son by President Obama, Vice President Biden, Secretary Clinton, and Secretary Panetta. “I begged them to them to tell me what happened,” said Smith. “No one, not one person has ever — ever gotten back to me other than media people and the gaming people.”

Taken together, this is the kind of unfolding scandal the media typically loves to make Issue Number One — the drip-drip quality of each revelation; the gut-wrenching drama of that horrible night; the shoddy treatment of the victims from the State Department; the fact it should have been prevented, and smoking guns that prove it; Hillary Clinton’s political future; and, the shifting explanations from the White House during an election year, calling into question one of its signature foreign policy victories.

Instead, Benghazi has been a below-the-fold story. The New York Times gave Libya a 23-word tease on the bottom of its front page the morning after the hearings. And not one nightly newscast Wednesday led with Benghazi — in favor of horse-race coverage, NBC and CBS had it as their third story, and ABC as their second.

So why hasn’t it yet captured the collective media mind? Republican critics make the case that it’s the pro-Obama main-stream media at work again, and the Republican National Committee has kept up a steady stream of product, making the case that Benghazi should be a much bigger issue.

And they might have a point — more than a few members of the media covering the story have privately wondered whether the widespread editorial disinterest can be chalked up to Big Media’s preference for Obama.

Certainly, it's hard to imagine that under a Bush administration it would be treated the same. If this kind of catastrophic attack — and cover-up — had happened in 2004 or 2008, it would have likely dominated presidential debates and re-shaped election coverage.

“Romney had front pages of ****ing The Toledo Blade attacking him for his press release after Benghazi,” one Republican official told BuzzFeed. “You can quibble over timing , but there was outrage on the cable channels about it. Where are those voices now saying, ‘what’s the administration bungling here, didn’t they **** this up?’”

It’s not that there hasn’t been excellent coverage of Libya: The New York Times, The Washington Post, and ABC News, among others outlets, have delivered outstanding on-the-ground reporting and scoops from inside the State Departement and White House. In fact, before yesterday’s hearing, the only credible information about Benghazi had come from the media, not the government, which was too afraid until just last week to go back in. (Another American official murdered or kidnapped in Libya would have been a political knockout punch.)

Yet that reporting hasn’t yet driven the political framework surrounding the attack, according to critics. “Most of the media stations covered the events, trying to figure out the details. But the big gap was in the political coverage of it,” continued the Republican official. “We’ve had a lot of conversations with big TV stations and newspaper about the gap.”

Media critics contacted by BuzzFeed said they weren’t quite sure if whether it was an instance of liberal media bias at work, or just a lack of appetite for foreign news.

“I’m dismayed this story was unspooled so slowly,” says Andrew Beaujon, a media critic at the Poynter Institute. “I thought the story would dominate national news after Michael Birnbaum [of The Washington Post] reported last week that the U.S. consulate still hadn’t been secured and that he’d easily gathered personal information about Libyan contractors in the consulate.”
“What does get done just isn’t as entertaining as, say, Mitt Romney talking about Big Bird,” adds Beaujon.

Says Dartmouth media professor Brendan Nyhan: “I wonder whether the aftermath of the first debate drowned out the Benghazi allegations, which might have received more attention if it looked like Obama was cruising to victory.”

“Typically,” said Nyhan, “you would expect more coverage of weakness or failed security policies under a Democratic administration.”

Robert Entman, media scholar and author of Scandal and Silence, rejects the liberal bias claim completely, and gives the administration the benefit of the doubt. “The White House, like every other one, deals with the problem of having to process uncertain information under time pressure, with conflicting reports on the ground, different bureaucracies protecting their turfs and shading info they pass on to the president to suit their own interests,” said Entman.

“The idea that the media have been light-peddling this because they love Obama is also silly,” he adds.

There is, though, one particularly surprising dog that has not barked in the coverage of the events: what happened in Benghazi has not led to any discussion about whether intervening in Libya was the right idea — not the kind of immediate second-guessing that came with the Iraq War.

The intervention was sold as a way to get involved in the Middle East without paying a high price — France and other NATO allies taking the lead, U.S. muscle and technology backing them up, no boots on the ground. And perhaps it has been a cheap intervention — after all, it’s only cost four Americans lives.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mhastings/the-media-dropped-the-ball-on-benghazi

 

Since when was the the Cairo embassy a victim of a 'premeditated attack?' They organized a protest; some protestors got onto the grounds and committed some minor acts of vandalism; and then they all left without significant violence.

Obama played fast and loose with the facts by bundling Cairo and Benghazi together and calling it Muslim outrage; now critics are doing the same conflation, but calling it terrorism? It looks like the only thing that events in Cairo and Benghazi have in common is that they happened on the same day.

 

A few notes, this isn't everything I have

Opening Statements – Representative Issa.

The point of this is to examine overall security failures, which was not sufficient. Washington was repeatedly warned, but they chose to do nothing in the name of “normalization”. In fact, Washington warned the embassy not to make additional security requests as they would not accept them.
Ultimately, this was caused by a terrorist organization. This hearing is important in order to protect the other embassies – they need to be able to trust the security measures. “We intend to begin confidence-building across the world” about the embassies.

Representative Cummings responds:

All allegations must be carefully examined, but this examination is not bipartisan. The Republicans have hidden Colonel Wood from Democratic investigation and they were the only ones to go on a fact-finding mission to Benghazi. What the witnesses decry as a lack of security was actually fulfilled. It is important to make this bipartisan, as the Senate FRC sent a letter to the State Department asking for information. That’s an example.
In addition, the House has cut the budget for embassy security significantly. Closing tax loopholes for Congressman (not sure here) could have ensured enough funding for embassies across the world.

Representative Chaffetz:

“We have to understand how we got here.”

Nordstrom sent a statement that the environment in Libya was dangerous. There was plenty of evidence behind this –, there had been earlier terrorist attacks against the British embassy and their cars. There have been over 230 incidents in Libya, and the Red Cross and the UK consulate had moved out of Libya before the attack. However, the State Department emphasized normalization, and this was not a good thing. In addition, they have been intransigent.

Representative Norton:

This could have been avoided with more resources.

Should not forget the mourning in Libya that occurred after Steven’s death. Shows the new relation between the US and Libya.

The State Department has cooperated, but the spirit of bipartisanship has not occurred, as there was a lack of sharing of information.

Issa states that more Democrats than Republicans voted for the recent Appropriations Bill. Witnesses are called:

Lt. Col Andrew Wood:

Served as a security commander in Libya between February and August. He traveled to Benghazi to evaluate security and dealt with the UK embassy incident.

He knew Stevens very well, and the Site Security Team (SST) and dip. Security worked very well together. However, SST work ended August 5th.
The situation was unstable after Qadaffi’s death. Police was weak, lots of militia ran amok and were attacking westerners. Stevens had been personally threatened on Facebook – he liked to run and someone noted where. Security naturally responded to that.

However, it remained a struggle and was growing worse. There was a lack of security agents at the embassy.

Nordstrom:

He served in Tripoli as a Regional Security Officer (RSO) between September 2011 and July 2012. Met Stevens there.

The attack was unparalled in ferocity. Better security is of course essential, but it must be noted that diplomatic work simply cannot be conducted from a bunker.

Normally, embassies are protected by the host countries’ government, but that was not possible in Libya. In fact, it was to help alleviate this problem that the embassy was in Benghazi in the first place.

During the spring of 2012, there was more attacks against West. RSO requested more security from Washington. They asked for 15 men plus a mobile team of 6 men. This request was denied, unlike earlier ones.

The long-term plan was to get Libyan bodyguards – NOT a PMC. That is what embassies normally do.

Ultimately, the men who were in Benghazi performed well under a difficult situation.

Charlene Lamb:

Works in Bureau of Diplomatic Security in the State Department.

Described the compound. There was a public and private area divided into two sections, as well as a barracks for Libyans. They had made security upgrades before the attack, such as improved walls, barbed wires, and a new emergency warning system.

On 9/11 there were 5 security members and 3 Libyans. This was made with Libyan and US consultation.

Events on that day: 9:40 am – Dozens of heavily armed attacked swarm the embassy. Warning is sounded. They set diesel fuel on fire to force their way into the embassy and then set the building ablaze with more fuel.

Security prioritized evacuating Stevens during the fire, but they lost him (as well as the other person who died there) in the thick smoke. They tried to find him when they realized that, but were forced back by the smoke.

They then encountered an armed attack, but managed to get armored vehicles with assistance from Libyan government. A Libyan brigade arrived. At 11 pm, the decision was made to evacuate the embassy. Throughout their trip, the convoy carrying men were shot at as they fled.

Chafettz voice concerns at this point about classified information, but Kennedy and Lamb disagree. Issa sides with the SD, noting that they have prerogative on what is classified. However, all unclassified information must be handed over to the panel.

Next morning, the annex took mortar fire, including several direct hits. This killed the other Americans. Additional Libyan forces arrived and managed to take everyone to the airport.

Kennedy:

Speaks positively about Stevens’ great passion. Even now, we don’t know everything yet. The State Department will make sure everyone appropriate is held accountable.

We have to remember why we are still in Libya. Stevens came when the battle against Qaddafi was still ongoing. It was dangerous, but he knew Benghazi’s importance. That was sure shown when Libya kicked out militias. We cannot retreat from dangerous places or America loses as it will foster the rise of extremism.

“We cannot flee from dangerous places”.

-----

Issa asks Kennedy whether SD gave all relevant information. There is a dispute over whether that really happened, as Issa seems to think that the SD is playing games with the classified label at this hearing.

There was no dispute between Stevens and the security at the embassy, according to Nordstrom. However, there were insufficient resources.

Lamb admits that she received request for more security before the attack. She said no. There’s a lot of dispute whether Nordstrom sent a proper request or a recommendation, but Lamb admitted that she believed “that there was no justification” for more security. She got non-security personnel to help those security agents who were at the Benghazi embassy. She was interested in the process of getting additional security as Libyan forces and bodyguards.

Kucinich went on a Kucinich rant.

Ultimately, the security forces in Libya could not keep what they have, and the State Department told them that they wouldn’t even consider additional requests for security. The State Department conceded that there were no protests at the embassy.

They were also asked what level of security would have been necessary to save Stevens. Kennedy stated that additional weapons and tactics could have helped, but he didn’t want to speculate about the exact number of men. He noted that embassies cannot be fortresses – it was not possible to completely fortify the embassy from this level of attack, given the number of armed men and their weapons. The Accountability Board will make recommendations.


A few teams were sent to Benghazi,

 

Basically embassy security was lax - a fault of budget cuts by Republicans and definitely the State Department not heading warning. They made a mistake here.

Obama & Co clearly tried to do damage control and may have dug themselves deeper.

A scandal? Hardly. This is not a scandal, it is a tragedy that may have been avoidable, but this stuff does happen. There are numerous threats this country faces and there will be times when this stuff happens. What is important is the lessons we learn and adopt from it to prevent it in the future.

 

I don't think I have ever come across someone as brainwashed as the OP. Wow....I hope your friends and family are monitoring ....

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina

 

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/I23LOMUl7BA?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

Damn if you do, damn if you don't. I'm pretty sure whatever action(s) they do, you will have contrary better plan - complete with specifics.

 

Next up... the Ben Swayze coverup.

 

Damned if they lie about everything. damned if they lie about nothing. Makes sense

The white house lies about every detail to try to cover up a terrorist attack and your response is 'damned if you do. damned if you don't'. unreal.

 

You quoted my response to Basso's wagging the dog premise. For the sake of argument, you are the current POTUS, what do you think will be the better course of action? What will be your order now opposite to what I responded to as "damned if you do..." action. If you can't provide an alternative, I'm guessing you're waiting for Romney's talking point.

 

Can you imagine what would happen to you if you made a huge mistake in your job, then tried to lie with muffled up facts and over a month later after an investigation showed you were wrong and probably lying, you finally take responsibility... what would happen to you? If there was complicity from your other colleagues? If your mistake accused a whole lot of other people?

lol

 

I don't really follow the US media, but I remember reading something following the attack, that some people tracked the remaining embsasy officials and their guards to the safe hosue, which should be difficult since, well, it's a safe house, and immediately started an attack there. Plus there were terrorist elements in the attack on the embassy, but was it really that big of a cover up? I thought ppl already knew that the protests/violence was in part the video, in part an orchestrated attack.

 

If my lying was done to protect the company from bad press and avoid a blow to worker morale when my boss and I already had an understanding about where the fault actually lies but we have to wait till the whole thing blows over? I suppose I'd expect some sort of public reprimand or punishment and then compensation later.

I don't believe Clinton is to blame in any real logistical sense -- it probably wasn't her that heard the appeals for more security and said, 'sorry, there's no budget.' But, she is the head of the State Department, so she can take the blame just like a CEO takes blame for fraud by one of his traders that he didn't know anything about.

So, yeah, they lied to protect the State Dept people from blame and when it didn't work, Clinton fell on her sword to get everybody else off the hook, like a good soldier. I still don't think it's something you can try to hang on Obama. Procedurally, it was a mistake of someone whose name we don't even know. Bureaucratically, it's Clinton's fault for not having the Dept operate in such a way as to adequately assess risks and marshal resources. And politically, it's the President and the Congress at fault for not providing the resources to make State's job easy.