Let's not obscure the main point here--the CIA put in all 12 of the versions that the attack arose spontaneously because of the protests in Cairo. The protests in Cairo were due to the YouTube video. So, therefore the attackin Benghazi would have been related to the video. Now it turns out that the CIA got it wrong but it was not due to political considerations. And please stop saying that your concern is over 4 dead Americans. Where was your concern when thousands of Americans were dying or being seriously wounded in an unlawful war in Iraq (many of them just out of high school)?You're not talking about American dead, you're talking about American prestige.

freeman3 wrote:Let's not obscure the main point here--the CIA put in all 12 of the versions that the attack arose spontaneously because of the protests in Cairo. The protests in Cairo were due to the YouTube video. So, therefore the attackin Benghazi would have been related to the video. Now it turns out that the CIA got it wrong but it was not due to political considerations.

Actually, to "not obscure the main point" the CIA did not mention the video. They had a report that one AQ-related person mentioned the Cairo protests. He did not mention the video.

Further, the "main points" are these:

1. The Administration pursued a policy of "normalization," which meant stripping US security teams from Benghazi and entrusting American lives to locals, who were not trained or ready for what came.

2. For months, there were warnings of terrorism on the rise, including attacks against the British ambassador. There were requests for additional security for months before the attack. Nothing was done.

3. Prior to 9/11, there were no preparations for any possible trouble in North Africa. That's rather remarkable considering the turmoil in the area and the terrorists known preference for striking on significant anniversaries.

4. During the attacks, we know NOTHING of what Secretary Clinton or President Obama did. Contrast that with the affirmative leaking the White House did of the Bin Laden raid.

5. After the attack, the White House continually obscured the involvement of terrorists, blaming the video for two weeks. The President had many opportunities during the 14-day period to say "The attack on Benghazi was terrorism." He did not do that.

And please stop saying that your concern is over 4 dead Americans. Where was your concern when thousands of Americans were dying or being seriously wounded in an unlawful war in Iraq (many of them just out of high school)?

No, I won't stop saying that. We all have a right to know what happened--especially the families whose loved ones were murdered.

I opposed the Iraq invasion. Even if I had favored it, the two are not connected.

You're not talking about American dead, you're talking about American prestige.

No, I'm talking about the dead. It sickens me that the President has pledged to "hold accountable" those who attacked the consulate and yet their pictures weren't even released for months. No one in State, the CIA, or anywhere in government has been punished. That is inexplicable. Someone failed to do their job. Big time.

fate

The concept was to confuse the terrorists into thinking there was a response, causing them to flee. It was NOT to drop indiscriminate bombs on whomever.

The militias in Ben Ghazi were thought to have all kinds of weaponry. The aim of a major CIA program in the region was to disarm the groups.
Included in this were surface to air, anti aircraft missiles known to be missing. Some shoulder held. Very effective weaponry.
As Defence Secretary Gates said, you don't send aircraft to buzz the area, in hopes that it scares off the attackers, when they could become victim to these missiles. Gates reference to the cartoonish understanding of the military relates directly to the comments about using jet fighters to scare off attackers. Just dopey.

There were 4 dead in the attacks. Two in the initial attacks on the consulate. Two later on from mortar shells landing on the roof of the CIA Annex during the evacuation. The two in the initial attack could not have been helped by any force not already deployed on the consulate grounds. Indeed the defence forces at the annex were unable to reach them..
The two dead at the Annex included one member of the CIA defences posted at the Annex the CIA and one member of a CIA force that came to their defence. All in all, there were 37 people who were evacuated, at the cost of two defenders. It seems to me that the actual rescue was successful. How could anything have accomplished more than the successful evacuation of almost all the staff, with so few casualties?
.

rickyp wrote:fate

The concept was to confuse the terrorists into thinking there was a response, causing them to flee. It was NOT to drop indiscriminate bombs on whomever.

The militias in Ben Ghazi were thought to have all kinds of weaponry. The aim of a major CIA program in the region was to disarm the groups.
Included in this were surface to air, anti aircraft missiles known to be missing. Some shoulder held. Very effective weaponry..

If you, or anyone else believes you can bust into a consulate at night, set it aflame, and simultaneously be ready to shoot down an aircraft buzzing overhead a few times, then I'd suggest you know . . . next to nothing.

As Defence Secretary Gates said, you don't send aircraft to buzz the area, in hopes that it scares off the attackers, when they could become victim to these missiles. Gates reference to the cartoonish understanding of the military relates directly to the comments about using jet fighters to scare off attackers. Just dopey.

Ask him what the odds of shooting an F-15 making 2 or 3 passes when you're not prepared for it.

Here's what's dopey: a command structure that does no preparation in a hotbed of terror activity and then shrugs its shoulders while Americans are being butchered.

Actually, that's worse than dopey. It's shameful. It's un-American.

Our government consigned those men to death. You can say whatever you'd like, but you're really straining Gates' comments to areas he did not address.

All in all, there were 37 people who were evacuated, at the cost of two defenders. It seems to me that the actual rescue was successful. How could anything have accomplished more than the successful evacuation of almost all the staff, with so few casualties?

Talk about obscuring the point.

You know, what you write there would be great . . . if the attack wasn't so predictable and our government so unprepared for it.

Here's a question: why can't those 37 survivors appear before Congress? Why not? If some of them would have their "covers" blown, then they can be interviewed in private.

That, and the release of the emails (redacted as necessary to protect Clinton) sent during the 63 hours before those already released would end that part of the probe.

Still, who has been held responsible for this? What State Department official refused to increase security? Who decided to leave the consulate/CIA listening post there in spite of all the danger? Why was Stevens there on 9/11?

So your argument is that even though the CIA's assessment was that the Benghazi protests spontaneously arose out if the Cairo protests that the video would not be implicated, DF? So people in Benghazi, what, looked at what was going on in Cairo, did not know why, and decided they would protest too? The protests in Cairo were about the video and once the CIA said Benghazi arose out of the Cairo protests then the necessary implication was that the Benghazi protest was about the video too (any other conclusion is not reasonable). If you want to quibble with the CIA's assessment was based on this one communication, fine. But based in the CIA's assessment, the White House was completely justified in pointing towards the video.

fate

If you, or anyone else believes you can bust into a consulate at night, set it aflame, and simultaneously be ready to shoot down an aircraft buzzing overhead a few times, then I'd suggest you know . . . next to nothing

So, you're smarter about this stuff than Gates?

In the aftermath, some say that troops or a fighter jet should have been sent over the consulate to scare off the attackers — although one expert recently pointed out that both options were hindered by long travel times.
"Given the number of surface to air missiles that have disappeared from [former Libyan leader] Qaddafi's arsenals," Gates also reasoned, "I would not have approved sending an aircraft, a single aircraft, over Benghazi under those circumstances."
Gates said that U.S. military forces are noted for "planning and preparation before going into harm's way," but in the chaos of the attack, "there just wasn't any time to do that."
"To send in 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've been very dangerous. Personally, I would not have approved that."
He brushed off the idea of getting troops there quickly, calling it a "sort of a cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces."
These things always look a lot simpler in retrospect," he added.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/gates-be ... z2TlyIGjYg

So Gates can't be telling a fib now can he? Yeah, we should take his word as gospel!?
You want to believe him, I prefer to believe Bing West
I posted this earlier, he said:

"The U.S. military base in Sigonella, Sicily, was 480 miles away from Benghazi. Stationed at Sigonella were Special Operations Forces, transport aircraft and attack aircraft ... Fighter jets could have been at Benghazi in an hour; the commandos inside three hours." Your administration had seven hours, Mr. Secretary, seven hours."

And who is Bing West? a former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, I think he knows the cap[abilities of our special forces quite intimately don't you? Why would he claim we had plenty of time yet Gates and Panetta want us to believe something completely insane?

freeman3 wrote:So your argument is that even though the CIA's assessment was that the Benghazi protests spontaneously arose out if the Cairo protests that the video would not be implicated, DF?

That is a GROSS mischaracterization of what the CIA said.

CIA director David Petraeus was surprised when he read the freshly rewritten talking points an aide had emailed him in the early afternoon of Saturday, September 15. One day earlier, analysts with the CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis had drafted a set of unclassified talking points policymakers could use to discuss the attacks in Benghazi, Libya. But this new version​—​produced with input from senior Obama administration policymakers​—​was a shadow of the original.

The original CIA talking points had been blunt: The assault on U.S. facilities in Benghazi was a terrorist attack conducted by a large group of Islamic extremists, including some with ties to al Qaeda.

These were strong claims. The CIA usually qualifies its assessments, providing policymakers a sense of whether the conclusions of its analysis are offered with “high confidence,” “moderate confidence,” or “low confidence.” That first draft signaled confidence, even certainty: “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attack.”

There was good reason for this conviction. Within 24 hours of the attack, the U.S. government had intercepted communications between two al Qaeda-linked terrorists discussing the attacks in Benghazi. One of the jihadists, a member of Ansar al Sharia, reported to the other that he had participated in the assault on the U.S. diplomatic post. Solid evidence. And there was more. Later that same day, the CIA station chief in Libya had sent a memo back to Washington, reporting that eyewitnesses to the attack said the participants were known jihadists, with ties to al Qaeda.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/ ... 2032.html#

The only "connection" between Cairo and Benghazi was one intercepted communication from the Benghazi area which mentioned the protest in Cairo.

So people in Benghazi, what, looked at what was going on in Cairo, did not know why, and decided they would protest too? The protests in Cairo were about the video and once the CIA said Benghazi arose out of the Cairo protests then the necessary implication was that the Benghazi protest was about the video too (any other conclusion is not reasonable).

Yeah, the old, "Hey, let's go get some mortars and rpg's and stage a protest" line.

If you want to quibble with the CIA's assessment was based on this one communication, fine. But based in the CIA's assessment, the White House was completely justified in pointing towards the video.

We just disagree. Then again, you would believe Obama if he said he thought Holder was a man of integrity or if he claimed that he and Hillary had their undivided attention on the Benghazi attack that night.

GMTom wrote:So Gates can't be telling a fib now can he? Yeah, we should take his word as gospel!?
You want to believe him, I prefer to believe Bing West
I posted this earlier, he said:

"The U.S. military base in Sigonella, Sicily, was 480 miles away from Benghazi. Stationed at Sigonella were Special Operations Forces, transport aircraft and attack aircraft ... Fighter jets could have been at Benghazi in an hour; the commandos inside three hours." Your administration had seven hours, Mr. Secretary, seven hours."

And who is Bing West? a former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, I think he knows the cap[abilities of our special forces quite intimately don't you? Why would he claim we had plenty of time yet Gates and Panetta want us to believe something completely insane?

The key to me isn't even if we "could" have gotten forces there.

The key is "we could not" is not a defense that displays competence.

Anyone who had been watching the situation in North Africa, and in particular Libya, and did not have forces ready to respond to an attack like this should be fired. Period. It's inexcusable.

Is the issue of inactivity (not prepping a team after the assault began) a concern? I think the decision to stand down if all US personnel are dead, and the counter attack is not a good risk makes sense. The problem is the decision was made for them already by not having fast teams readying or assets in the area.

bbauska wrote:Is the issue of inactivity (not prepping a team after the assault began) a concern? I think the decision to stand down if all US personnel are dead, and the counter attack is not a good risk makes sense. The problem is the decision was made for them already by not having fast teams readying or assets in the area.

That's what I meant when I said:

Anyone who had been watching the situation in North Africa, and in particular Libya, and did not have forces ready to respond to an attack like this should be fired. Period. It's inexcusable.

It's like if we were not trying to hire "hackers" to protect our systems against China, etc. When you know there is a problem, as an executive, you have an obligation to address the problem.

President Obama, Secretary Clinton, and the entire chain of command knew there was a problem in Libya before the attack. They knew 9/11 was a day in which Islamists were likely to do something, somewhere. There was no more likely area than northern Africa.

Were they prepared?

Obviously not.

I show that what you say is incorrect DF and then you drag in irrelevant stuff. The CIA's assessment was that the attacks in Benghazi spontaneously arose out of the protests in Benghazi. The Cairo protests were about the video; therefore, the White House was justified in linking the video to the Benghazi protests. Discussions about deleting references to terrorist groups have nothing to do with the assessment by the CIA that the Benghazi protests were related to the Cairo protests and therefore were necessarily about the video (at least to start and then "extremists" joined in) Your refusal to answer this argument is your tacit admission that I'm right.
Btw contact with the ambassador was lost almost immediately (and the information officer was killed right away) so not sure what special forces could have done. Where would they have been stationed to respond so quickly? Libya? Having a large group of special forces close-by would have required a rather large undertaking to protect them from attack.
In any case, given that nothing could have done that night, given the resources, the criticism of the president and secretary of state has been shown to be unfounded. After all this wringing of hands, all Republicans have to show is that extremists was substituted for terrorists. Wow.

Freeman, your acceptance of what the White House wants you to believe is counter to the actual facts.
Read the factcheck.org timeline
approx 8 hours after things started, Hillary Clinton made the association between the attack and the video. Yet nowhere was it mentioned before that time, the reports make mention a "large number of armed men" and "The compound where our office is in Benghazi began taking fire from unidentified Libyan extremists.” nowhere do they mention "protesters" not to mention we had drones flying overhead, again, no "protests" (with RPG's Mortars, etc because it was NOT a "protest").

Further
6:07 p.m.: The State Department’s Operations Center sends an email to the White House, Pentagon, FBI and other government agencies that said Ansar al-Sharia has claimed credit for the attack on its Facebook and Twitter accounts.
This was FOUR HOURS before Clinton made the insipid statement this was due to the video, an obvious lie!

Yet you still want us to believe this is what they honestly thought?
Right from the start, armed men stormed the compound and burned down buildings ..."protests" really?

Now, I am going by the facts. You are going by the word of Obama and Clinton. Please support your claims by facts and we can consider them as possibly true.

and your claim

Btw contact with the ambassador was lost almost immediately (and the information officer was killed right away) so not sure what special forces could have done.

more misinformation
it took almost a full hour to discover the first death (not "right away")
and the ambassador was not killed "almost immediately" but rather nearly 2 hours after the assault.

Uh, go back and look at the timeline, Tom. The information officer was killed within 30 minutes after the attack started and contact was lost with the ambassador. It is not exactly clear when the ambassador succumbed to smoke, only that a doctor tried to revive him starting at 1:15 am It is speculative to make an assumption as to whether he could have been revived at an earlier time.
As for some group claiming responsibility--so what? They later denied responsibility, right? Moreover, the CIA made an assessment and the White House was entitled to rely on that.