1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

  2. LIVE WATCH EVENT
    Will Reed Sheppard continue his torrid play in Summer League? Join us as the Rockets take on Ron Holland and the Pistons at 5:30pm CT!

    Rockets vs. Pistons - LIVE!

Senate Investigation: Stevens Didn't Have to Die in Benghazi

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by KingCheetah, Jan 15, 2014.

  1. KingCheetah

    KingCheetah Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    56,985
    Likes Received:
    49,224
    Senate Probers: Stevens Didn't Have to Die in Benghazi

    A rare bipartisan report by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released Wednesday attempted to put to rest conspiracy theories and politically-driven allegations about the Sept. 11, 2012, Benghazi attacks that killed four American officials.

    The panel's 85-page report placed blame for the incident first and foremost on armed Islamist militants -- mostly associated with five groups closely tied to core-al Qaeda -- but also with the State Department run by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, whose staff failed to heed incessant warnings that security was evaporating there.

    The committee's majority Democrats, led by Chairman Dianne Feinstein of California, concluded that the attacks "were likely preventable."

    While investigators found "no singular 'tactical warning' in the intelligence" leading up to the attack, it listed "tripwires" such as multiple military intelligence reports that the senators believe "provided ample strategic warning" of the rising danger to U.S. facilities and personnel in Benghazi. The attacks that began at 9:45 p.m. that night resulted in the deaths of U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens, Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith and CIA paramilitary operators Ty Woods and Glen Doherty, both former Navy SEALs.

    Of greatest concern beforehand were militants, some of whom had established training camps, from Islamist extremist groups in North Africa with historic ties to Osama Bin Laden's al Qaeda, according to the report. Investigators found that "individuals affiliated with terrorist groups ... participated in the Sept. 12, 2012 attacks," though no evidence shows that al Qaeda in Pakistan directly ordered the attacks the same day a video by Bin Laden's successor Ayman al-Zawahiri was released.

    "Despite the clearly deteriorating situation in Benghazi and requests for additional security resources, few significant improvements were made by the State Department," the committee concluded, adding that the cabinet-level agency overseeing U.S. diplomacy "should have increased its security posture more significantly in Benghazi."

    The senators also said that the intelligence community has since "identified several individuals responsible for the attacks." An ABC News intelligence source said most of the Benghazi perpetrators have been identified and their whereabouts are known to the U.S., even though none have been apprehended so far.

    "The FBI's investigation into the individuals responsible for the Benghazi attacks has been hampered by inadequate cooperation and a lack of capacity by foreign governments to hold these perpetrators accountable, making the pursuit of justice for the attacks slow and insufficient," the report said.

    State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf on Wednesday told reporters that "there was no specific threat indicating an attack was coming. Obviously we've talked at length about the fact that we knew there were extremists and terrorists operating in Libya and in Benghazi. But again, we had no specific information indicating a threat -- an attack was coming."

    Republican members of the committee signed the report but in "additional views" decried the "complete lack of accountability" within the Obama administration over Benghazi failings.

    In the main bipartisan report, however, the committee essentially held Stevens himself at least partially accountable for his own death.

    full article
     
  2. B-Bob

    B-Bob "94-year-old self-described dreamer"

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    34,994
    Likes Received:
    34,401
    Now the Senate itself is trying to distract America from Christie's bridge fiasco.
     
  3. mc mark

    mc mark Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 1999
    Messages:
    26,195
    Likes Received:
    468
    "The panel's 85-page report placed blame for the incident first and foremost on armed Islamist militants -- mostly associated with five groups closely tied to core-al Qaeda"

    This is interesting and completely 180⁰ from what the Times investigation said a few weeks ago.

    Not sure who to believe. :confused:

    Also very sad that Stevens twice seems to have rejected more security. Just a sad, tragedy.
     
  4. basso

    basso Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    30,467
    Likes Received:
    7,010
    Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) rejected the Times’s conclusion that al Qaeda wasn’t responsible for the attack that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. She also took issue with the notion that the Libya strike was sparked by a U.S.-made anti-Islam video online.

    “I believe that groups loosely associated with al Qaeda were” involved in the attack, she told The Hill last week. “That’s my understanding.”
    She also disputed the notion that the Sept. 11, 2012, assault evolved from a protest against the video, which was widely disseminated by Islamic clerics shortly before the attack.

    “It doesn’t jibe with me,” she said.



    Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/global-aff...instein-rejects-nyt-on-benghazi#ixzz2qWFLNjLR
    Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
     
  5. NotInMyHouse

    NotInMyHouse Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    3,644
    Likes Received:
    1,023
    It's strange. The article says, prior to him rejecting security, that he asked for it in the months leading up to the attacks. So did he turn down and then ask for more security or vice versa? What's the time line on these requests, does anyone know?
     
  6. mc mark

    mc mark Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 1999
    Messages:
    26,195
    Likes Received:
    468
    See? This is what I'm talking about.

    Feinstein says this: “I believe that groups loosely associated with al Qaeda"

    But then she signs a report says this?: "mostly associated with five groups closely tied to core-al Qaeda"
     
  7. KingCheetah

    KingCheetah Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    56,985
    Likes Received:
    49,224
    I don't think it matters -- he really shouldn't have had the option to turn down more security if intelligence felt the embassy needed more men. The State Dept. should have told him 'No, we're sending in additional security'.
     
  8. mc mark

    mc mark Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 1999
    Messages:
    26,195
    Likes Received:
    468
    Maybe the State Dept didn't have the budget?.
     
  9. hairyme

    hairyme Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2011
    Messages:
    691
    Likes Received:
    93
    I think NPR states it a little better...

    If a bunch of white supremacists burned a black church down, would we really care if they're affiliated with the Ku Klux Klan or not? When a bunch of thugs carry out a drive-by shooting, does it matter if they claim any association with crips or bloods??

    The point is that there is a strong anti-American/westerner sentiment among these Islamic militants in the region. I'm still baffled that people (read: Republicans) are still splitting hairs over whether the attackers were card-carrying Al Qaida members or not--who cares?? It's such a brazen and empty attempt at manufacturing controversy, and it's embarrassing that our media has driven it along for the "hits"/profit.
     
  10. bigtexxx

    bigtexxx Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2002
    Messages:
    26,927
    Likes Received:
    2,269
    well at least we're talking about real news instead of the trumped up "scandal" the dims tried to create over a traffic jam.
     
  11. GladiatoRowdy

    GladiatoRowdy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    16,596
    Likes Received:
    494
    The "dims" among us are right wingers like you who can't accept reality.

    When you have to resort to insults, you've lost.

    :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
     
    1 person likes this.
  12. NotInMyHouse

    NotInMyHouse Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    3,644
    Likes Received:
    1,023
    I agree he shouldn't have been able to turn down additional security, but he also asked for additional security. So did he ask for it after he rejected it initially?
     
  13. basso

    basso Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    30,467
    Likes Received:
    7,010
    you're correct that whether or not the attackers were directly affiliated with al-queda is peripheral to the scandal, but it's a not unimportant detail. the al-queda connection directly contradicts Obama's triumphalist narrative that "al-queda is on the run." we now know that to be bull**** (see fallujah), and to most of us it was clear in 2012. the administration, including Hillary, covered it up due to the very real impact such info would have had on the election.

    There are three primary aspects to the story: First, were the attacks preventable? 2nd, after the attacks began, was help available and not sent? and 3rd, why did the administration go out of its way to blame the attacks on an obscure video?

    the answers to #s 1&3 are directly related to the al queda question, and whether we are (were) winning the fight against islamic terrorism, and Obama's reelection prospects. in short, Obama failed to take action, and lied after the fact in an attempt to preserve the narrative and his reelection chances. IOW, for the basest political reasons.

    the 2nd is more complicated, but as the senate report makes clear, Obama was told early on that an attack was under way, and went to bed w/o taking action.

    what difference does it make? if we ever want a government that doesn't lie to those it represents, and makes good on its commitment to protect and defend its citizens, those responsible should be held accountable.

    that includes Obama and Hillary.
     
  14. fchowd0311

    fchowd0311 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    48,933
    Likes Received:
    37,578
    Ironic that you would be a happy man if all the bull you just typed now turned out to be true. True American you are.
     
  15. Dubious

    Dubious Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2001
    Messages:
    18,317
    Likes Received:
    5,089
    Newsflash, it ain't the Dems that want to crash a RINO's rising star. The obstructionist of the 1% will allow no appeasement, no compromise, no cooperation. Anybody that doesn't play along with that narrative will be crushed.
     
  16. mc mark

    mc mark Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 1999
    Messages:
    26,195
    Likes Received:
    468
    This is just beautiful coming from a GWB lover.
     
  17. JuanValdez

    JuanValdez Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 1999
    Messages:
    34,362
    Likes Received:
    13,933
    The conclusion seems to fall in line with what I already thought. State Dept screwed up and didn't provide enough security. I have to agree with hairyme -- it doesn't matter to me whether they were tightly or loosely aligned with AQ, or if they're not associated at all. So far as the War on Terror is concerned, the Benghazi attack was a battle lost, regardless of who the enemy was. It probably matters to the Navy Seals who exactly did what for tactical reasons, but it doesn't matter to me as a citizen and voter. State Dept screwed up and let the terrorists got one over on us.

    Basso would like this to be about the cover up, but I don't find it compelling. It might have been a cover up and it might have been fog of war, and I really can't tell which. It doesn't matter to me because it didn't effect my vote. It might say something about Hillary's competence, but I doubt I'll be voting for her anyway. For Obama, I think it's an example of talking too soon, which he has done on other occassions. It's not great, but it's a small sin. I wouldn't blame him for any of the rest of it.
     
  18. basso

    basso Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    30,467
    Likes Received:
    7,010
    I didn't make it about the cover up, Obama did, by blaming it on the video, and having the video director arrested.

    don't forget, people died as a result of the cover up.
     
  19. mtbrays

    mtbrays Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,884
    Likes Received:
    6,771
    You have no ground to stand on.
     
  20. JuanValdez

    JuanValdez Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 1999
    Messages:
    34,362
    Likes Received:
    13,933
    Sorry, maybe I'm slow today. Who died because of the cover-up?

    (And the director was arrested for violating his probation after his conviction for bank fraud. It's not like he's a political prisoner. More like he's an ******* and a con artist. He's out of prison now, by the way. I'm not crying for him.)
     

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now