Can anyone fill in this blank: On September 11, 2012, Islamic terrorists attacked the US consulate in Benghazi and killed the Libyan ambassador and three other Americans. The U.S. response was _________________________________________
Can anyone fill in this blank: On September 11, 2012, Islamic terrorists attacked the US consulate in Benghazi and killed the Libyan ambassador and three other Americans. The U.S. response was "WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE??!?!"
CLASSIFIED You don't think there is stuff we don't know? No one has even addressed why the Ambassador was 400 miles from the Embassy, exposed to the overwhelming fire power of militias with questionable allegiances in the middle of a fluid Islamic uprising. I've seen hunts he was negotiating alliances and some militia commanders were upset the US was backing moderates; but haven't heard too much.
I really see nothing significantly new here. It's a valid and interesting story (how the State Dept was so concern about congress and didn't like the CIA placing blame on them --- which i think was rightly so), but nothing on the level of a cover up. Poor judgement and political maneuver YES. Cover up, don't see it. And... hasn't there been at least 3 reports, one from the House, one from the Senate and one from the State Dept itself that are all very critical of the State Dept. ? I think the FBI report is one that is still on-going and is probably the most important to understand exactly what happen.
The state department took out all refrences to AQ and terrorism from the talking points and then went on tv and blamed a youtube video knowing otherwise. That's the very definition of a cover up. Not sure what you don't see. Thank god for the republican house. The democratic senate has had no hearings that I know of.
I trust the words of Robert Gates on the subject. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/13/u...s-of-benghazi-attack.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 Robert M. Gates, the former defense secretary who served several Republican presidents in various capacities, before staying on under Mr. Obama for two and a half years, disputed the suggestion that the Pentagon could have scrambled jets or special forces during the attack, calling it a “cartoonish impression of military capabilities.” “Frankly, had I been in the job at the time, I think my decisions would have been just as theirs were,” he said on the CBS News program “Face the Nation.” “Frankly, I’ve heard ‘Well, why didn’t you just fly a fighter jet over and try and scare ’em with the noise or something?’ Well, given the number of surface-to-air missiles that have disappeared from Qaddafi’s arsenals, I would not have approved sending an aircraft, a single aircraft over Benghazi under those circumstances.” He added: “And to send some small number of special forces or other troops in without knowing what the environment is, without knowing what the threat is, without having any intelligence in terms of what is actually going on on the ground, I think, would have been very dangerous.”
Let's make a deal: you bring George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld before a committee for war crimes and the conspiracy to have over 3,000 Americans and 100,000 Iraqis killed. Sound silly? Well, welcome to the world of "Two Can Play That Game," where both sides are incorrigible and refuse to give any credence to the other.
uh oh, one of the "sides" is off the reservation: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blo...talking-point-edits-white-house.html?mobify=0 -- SPINNING BENGHAZI POSTED BY ALEX KOPPELMAN It’s a cliché, of course, but it really is true: in Washington, every scandal has a crime and a coverup. The ongoing debate about the attack on the United States facility in Benghazi where four Americans were killed, and the Obama Administration’s response to it, is no exception. For a long time, it seemed like the idea of a coverup was just a Republican obsession. But now there is something to it. On Friday, ABC News’s Jonathan Karl revealed the details of the editing process for the C.I.A.’s talking points about the attack, including the edits themselves and some of the reasons a State Department spokeswoman gave for requesting those edits. It’s striking to see the twelve different iterations that the talking points went through before they were released to Congress and to United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice, who used them in Sunday show appearances that became a central focus of Republicans’ criticism of the Administration’s public response to the attacks. Over the course of about twenty-four hours, the remarks evolved from something specific and fairly detailed into a bland, vague mush. From the very beginning of the editing process, the talking points contained the erroneous assertion that the attack was “spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved.” That’s an important fact, because the right has always criticized the Administration based on the suggestion that the C.I.A. and the State Department, contrary to what they said, knew that the attack was not spontaneous and not an outgrowth of a demonstration. But everything else about the changes that were made is problematic. The initial draft revealed by Karl mentions “at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi” before the one in which four Americans were killed. That’s not in the final version. Nor is this: “[W]e do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” That was replaced by the more tepid “There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.” (Even if we accept the argument that State wanted to be sure that extremists were involved, and that they could be linked to Al Qaeda, before saying so with any level of certainty—which is reasonable and supported by evidence from Karl’s reporting—that doesn’t fully explain these changes away.) Democrats will argue that the editing process wasn’t motivated by a desire to protect Obama’s record on fighting Al Qaeda in the run-up to the 2012 election. They have a point; based on what we’ve seen from Karl’s report, the process that went into creating and then changing the talking points seems to have been driven in large measure by two parts of the government—C.I.A. and State—trying to make sure the blame for the attacks and the failure to protect American personnel in Benghazi fell on the other guy. But the mere existence of the edits—whatever the motivation for them—seriously undermines the White House’s credibility on this issue. This past November (after Election Day), White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters that “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.” Remarkably, Carney is sticking with that line even now. In his regular press briefing on Friday afternoon (a briefing that was delayed several times, presumably in part so the White House could get its spin in order, but also so that it could hold a secretive pre-briefing briefing with select members of the White House press corps), he said: The only edit made by the White House or the State Department to those talking points generated by the C.I.A. was a change from referring to the facility that was attacked in Benghazi from “consulate,” because it was not a consulate, to “diplomatic post”… it was a matter of non-substantive factual correction. But there was a process leading up to that that involved inputs from a lot of agencies, as is always the case in a situation like this and is always appropriate. This is an incredible thing for Carney to be saying. He’s playing semantic games, telling a roomful of journalists that the definition of editing we’ve all been using is wrong, that the only thing that matters is who’s actually working the keyboard. It’s not quite re-defining the word “is,” or the phrase “sexual relations,” but it’s not all that far off, either.
don't worry, the State Dept's own in house review board says nothing to see here <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>@<a href="https://twitter.com/facethenation">facethenation</a> Pickering (<a href="https://twitter.com/search/%23Benghazi">#Benghazi</a> review board) told @<a href="https://twitter.com/bobschieffer">bobschieffer</a> that they met with Clinton but didn't ask her any questions.</p>— Sharyl Attkisson (@SharylAttkisson) <a href="https://twitter.com/SharylAttkisson/status/333642844592029696">May 12, 2013</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Pickering said 5 member board also met with State Dept. Secretaries William Burns &Thomas Nides, but didn't ask them any questions either.</p>— Sharyl Attkisson (@SharylAttkisson) <a href="https://twitter.com/SharylAttkisson/status/333643150662975491">May 12, 2013</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Pickering explained to @<a href="https://twitter.com/bobschieffer">bobschieffer</a> that the board had all the answers and didn't need to ask the top officials at State any questions.</p>— Sharyl Attkisson (@SharylAttkisson) <a href="https://twitter.com/SharylAttkisson/status/333643240337207296">May 12, 2013</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Man, if only some Dem staffers had pushed through a costly war based on phony evidence, outed a CIA agent in the process and then had the head of their party pardon the guy. Or maybe traded some weapons for hostages before their brains went to mush.
You can tell how bad the the Demos think this is when they start comparing it Iran Contra and Iraq II. Past wrongs don't erase current ones.
From November 11th 2012 'Troubling' Surveillance Before Benghazi Attack Sensitive documents found amid the wreckage of the U.S. consulate shine new light on the Sept. 11 assault that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. BENGHAZI, Libya — More than six weeks after the shocking assault on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi -- and nearly a month after an FBI team arrived to collect evidence about the attack - the battle-scarred, fire-damaged compound where Ambassador Chris Stevens and another Foreign Service officer lost their lives on Sept. 11 still holds sensitive documents and other relics of that traumatic final day, including drafts of two letters worrying that the compound was under "troubling" surveillance and complaining that the Libyan government failed to fulfill requests for additional security. More... When we visited on Oct. 26 to prepare a story for Dubai based Al Aan TV, we found not only Stevens's personal copy of the Aug. 6 New Yorker, lying on remnants of the bed in the safe room where Stevens spent his final hours, but several ash-strewn documents beneath rubble in the looted Tactical Operations Center, one of the four main buildings of the partially destroyed compound. Some of the documents -- such as an email from Stevens to his political officer in Benghazi and a flight itinerary sent to Sean Smith, a U.S. diplomat slain in the attack -- are clearly marked as State Department correspondence. Others are unsigned printouts of messages to local and national Libyan authorities. The two unsigned draft letters are both dated Sept. 11 and express strong fears about the security situation at the compound on what would turn out to be a tragic day. They also indicate that Stevens and his team had officially requested additional security at the Benghazi compound for his visit -- and that they apparently did not feel it was being provided. One letter, written on Sept. 11 and addressed to Mohamed Obeidi, the head of the Libyan Ministry of Foreign Affairs' office in Benghazi, reads: "Finally, early this morning at 0643, September 11, 2012, one of our diligent guards made a troubling report. Near our main gate, a member of the police force was seen in the upper level of a building across from our compound. It is reported that this person was photographing the inside of the U.S. special mission and furthermore that this person was part of the police unit sent to protect the mission. The police car stationed where this event occurred was number 322." The account accords with a message written by Smith, the IT officer who was killed in the assault, on a gaming forum on Sept. 11. "Assuming we don't die tonight. We saw one of our ‘police' that guard the compound taking pictures," he wrote hours before the assault. The State Department declined to comment directly on the documents, citing an ongoing investigation. "An independent board is conducting a thorough review of the assault on our post in Benghazi," deputy spokesman Mark Toner said. "Once we have the board's comprehensive account of what happened, findings and recommendations, we can fully address these matters." Obeidi, the Libyan official named on one of the printouts, said he had not received any such letter, adding, "I did not even know that the U.S. ambassador was visiting Benghazi." However, a spokesman for the Benghazi police confirmed that the ministry had notified the police of the ambassador's visit. "We did not receive that letter from the U.S. consulate. We received a letter from Ministry of Foreign Affairs Benghazi asking for additional security measures around consulate during visit of the ambassador. And the police provided all extra security which was asked for," the spokesman said. It is not clear whether the U.S. letters were ever sent, and if so, what action was taken before the assault on the evening of Sept. 11. But they speak to a dangerous and uncertain security environment in Benghazi that clearly had many State Department officials worried for their safety. Since the fall of Muammar al-Qaddafi's regime, the country's powerful militias have often run roughshod over the police and national army -- and often coopted these institutions for their own purposes. U.S. officials were certainly well aware of the sway that various militias held over Benghazi, given that the consulate's external security was supposed to be provided by the Islamist-leaning February 17 brigade. What exactly happened that night is still a mystery. Libyans have pointed fingers at Ansar al-Sharia, a hard-line Islamist group with al Qaeda sympathies, if not ties. Ansar al-Sharia has denied involvement, but some of its members were spotted at the consulate. The document also suggests that the U.S. consulate had asked Libyan authorities on Sept. 9 for extra security measures in preparation for Stevens' visit, but that the Libyans had failed to provide promised support. "On Sunday, September 9, 2012, the U.S. mission requested additional police support at our compound for the duration of U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens' visit. We requested daily, twenty-four hour police protection at the front and rear of the U.S. mission as well as a roving patrol. In addition we requested the services of a police explosive detection dog," the letter reads. "We were given assurances from the highest authorities in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that all due support would be provided for Ambassador Stevens' visit to Benghazi. However, we are saddened to report that we have only received an occasional police presence at our main gate. Many hours pass when we have no police support at all." The letter concludes with a request to the Libyan Ministry of Foreign Affairs to look into the incident of the policeman conducting surveillance, and the absence of requested security measures. "We submit this report to you with the hopes that an official inquiry can be made into this incident and that the U.S. Mission may receive the requested police support," the letter reads. A number of other documents were found on the floor inside the TOC building. They are partly covered with ash, but legible. A second letter is addressed to Benghazi's police chief and also concerns the police surveillance of the U.S. consulate on the morning of Sept. 11. The letter also requests an investigation of the incident, and states that the consulate "takes this opportunity to renew to the Benghazi Police the assurances of its highest consideration and hopes for increased cooperation." Benghazi's head of police, Brigadier Hussain Abu Hmeidah, was fired by the government in Tripoli one week after the consulate attack. However, Abu Hmeidah refused to step down and is still serving as the head of police. He is currently on sick leave, according to his office manager, Captain Seraj Eddine al-Sheikhi, and was unavailable for comment. The man who officially was appointed to succeed Abu Hmeidah as Benghazi's police chief, Salah Doghman, said in a Sept 19 interview with Reuters: "This is a mess ...When you go to the police headquarters, you will find there no police. The people in charge are not at their desks. They have refused to let me take up my job." The concerns about police surveillance exhibited in the letters to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Benghazi police chief cast further doubt on early reports that a spontaneous protest was to blame for the attack on the U.S. consulate -- reports that the State Department has disavowed. They also appear to contradict an Oct. 9 State Department briefing on the consulate attack, during which a senior State Department official claimed that there had been no security incidents at the consulate that day. "Everything is calm at 8:30 p.m," the official said. "There's nothing unusual. There has been nothing unusual during the day at all outside." These letters were found a month and a half after the attack, despite a visit to the compound by FBI investigators. Other documents found at the TOC building include a printout of an unclassified Sept. 9 email between Stevens and David McFarland, the head of the U.S. Embassy's political and economic section, inquiring about meetings for the ambassador's upcoming visit; telephone numbers and names of embassy staff; and a hotel bill from Stevens' 2011 stay at the Tibesti Hotel in Benghazi. The continued threat to U.S. personnel in Benghazi may be the reason these documents escaped the FBI's attention. With suspected militants still roaming the streets, FBI investigators only had limited time to check the consulate compound. According to a Benghazi resident who resides near the consulate, the FBI team spent only three hours examining the compound. The FBI declined to comment, citing the ongoing investigation. During their short visit, FBI agents apparently mapped the compound by gluing small pieces of yellow paper with different letters on it next to each room in the TOC building. Next to the room where the letters and most documents were found, a yellow paper marks it room "D." Above the paper, somebody has carved a swastika in the blackened wall. Villa C, which was used as Stevens' residence during his stay in Benghazi, is located 50 meters from the TOC building. Here, an open window leads to the safe haven -- a sealed-off part of Villa C where Stevens and Smith suffocated to death. On the destroyed bed lay the Aug. 6, 2012, copy of the New Yorker. The magazine's cover carries a label with Stevens's name and his diplomatic mailing address. A few meters to the right is the safe haven's bathroom. Everything here is blackened by smoke. One of the two white toilets is covered with bloodstains. On the mirror in the bathroom, an unknown person has written a macabre text in a thin layer of ash. "I am Chris from the dead," it reads. ------------------------- This article is shocking.
