danivon wrote:Two questions.

1. If the Secretary of State says that mistakes made by the State department are her responsibility (and if it can't be shown that requests went outside the State department), will that be sufficient for people to stop blaming Obama? Or at least completely.

There were two attacks on the consulate before 9/11, including one with explosives. There were posted threats of an attack on 9/11. There was video from a drone (even accepting that the video feed from the consulate was not available until the FBI recovered it, the drone video would be intelligence agency video).

So, you can conclude that Obama was so isolated that his acolytes refused to disturb him with all of this as he was jetting off to Vegas for a fundraiser (thus demonstrating the amateurish incompetence of the Administration) or you can conclude they were so heavily invested in the "Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive; Al Qaida is on its heels" meme that they covered this up for political purposes.

Is it Obama's fault?

For his fans, nothing is his fault. For me, I just want him held to the same standard as Bush. Everything was Bush's fault and, according to his enemies, anything that went right was to someone else's credit. In this Administration, the President takes no blame and takes an inordinate amount of credit.

2. If part of the reason for no additional security is that Congress recently denied increased funding for security for the State department , will that be sufficient for members of Congress who voted to deny the increase accept some of the responsibility for making it harder to increase security at Benghazi? Or at least stop blaming others?

This is tripe. There was enough money to station Marines in the embassy in Barbados on 9/11 this year, but not enough to protect the consulate in Benghazi?

Furthermore, given that the area was known to be unsafe (as evidenced by an assassination attempt on the British ambassador and the previous attacks on the consulate), and it was 9/11, is a general budget cut sufficient excuse to have sub-standard security at the consulate?

And, there is one obvious problem with this assertion:

Issa went on to note that Charlene Lamb, the State Department official who fielded security requests from the Libya U.S. diplomatic officials had said that money wasn’t the reason for the slim security in Libya. Consider this exchange from the congressional hearing on Libya last week:

“It has been suggested that budget cuts are responsible for a lack of security in Benghazi, and I’d like to ask Miss Lamb,” said Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R., Calif.). “You made this decision personally. Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which lead you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?”

“No, sir,” said Lamb.

This is not Watergate. Watergate involved a criminal act, paid for by the committee set up to support the re-election of Nixon and working from within the White House. G Gordon Liddy presented ideas to the Attorney General, who accepted the use of burglary. The cover up was of direct White House and administration involement and complicity in a crime.

This is about a crime committed against Americans by terrorists, and the question of whether the State department did enough without the benefit of hindsight to defend the consulate and the Ambassador.

Who died as a result of Watergate? Here we have four dead Americans.

And, it could be a political matter. We don't know yet.

Again, imagine the President had come out after the attack and said, "This appears to be the work of Al Qaida, but we won't make any further comments until we have all the information" or "We just don't know yet, but we will get to the bottom of this and those responsible will be held accountable."

Instead, there was a campaign of disinformation by the Administration. Even when the President was on the View and Letterman, he was blaming (by implication) the video. Susan Rice went on all 5 Sunday talk shows and told a story the Administration knew was false.

Something is amiss. The Administration, at best, made a hash of this. Read the Chicago Trib Op-Ed. That's a paper that is rooting for the President.

The 'cover up' is about how quickly it was known exactly what happened and the extent of the use of the outrage against the anti-Islamic film to cover for, or otherwise help precipitate, the attack.

When it comes to dead Americans, the President should not be peddling false stories--more than a week after he knows the truth. He did that. He should not send the Ambassador to the UN to go on national TV 5 times to misrepresent what happened. He did that (if you believe she repeated, nearly verbatim, the same story 5x without White House approval, you are terribly gullible).

There should be an enquiry into what happened in the lead up to the attack. However, it should perhaps not be lead by politicians who have an interest in it coming out a certain way (eg, against the President in an election year, not against them, having voted against funding more security). Fat chance of a non-partisan independent enquiry in the USA, though.

Better: the White House should just open up the documents. If they've nothing to hide, then they should put all their cards on the table. There is no better defense than the truth.

Bush got the blame for everything from dumb partisan hacks. You want to stick to that standard of political debate, go right ahead. When you feel like elevating yourself above the worst of your opponents, and show you are ready to look at things in a more, objective way, a less all-or-nothing way, with fewer false dichotomies and generalising slurs, I'll re-engage in this thread.

The difference between this and Watergate is not the number of dead Americans, it's the lack of evidence that White House staff carried out a criminal act with the assent of a cabinet member. The people to blame for dead Americans are the ones shooting at them with heavy weapons, and those who organised the attack. There are questions to ask about what the Admisinstration knew and what it did (and the key is which parts, not assuming that the President is omniscient). However, it strikes me as cheap and tawdry to use dead Americans as a political football.

danivon wrote:Bush got the blame for everything from dumb partisan hacks. You want to stick to that standard of political debate, go right ahead.

I don't think that is a fair summary of what I said.

When you feel like elevating yourself above the worst of your opponents, and show you are ready to look at things in a more, objective way, a less all-or-nothing way, with fewer false dichotomies and generalising slurs, I'll re-engage in this thread.

I still have not said this was Obama's fault. I think it is, undeniably, his responsibility. For example, let's say someone in State denied the requests for extra security. That person ought to be sacked.

Now, the President is 100% responsible for what HE said and what he ordered to be said after the incident. In both cases, his conduct has been inexcusable. On September 24, the President was on The View. He blamed the video for the attack on the consulate. http://www.mrctv.org/videos/obama-vs-ob ... rything-it

The difference between this and Watergate is not the number of dead Americans, it's the lack of evidence that White House staff carried out a criminal act with the assent of a cabinet member.

Okay, but both are representative, I think, of a gross abuse of power. The Administration lied to us. They didn't have to. If they had told the truth from the beginning, this would not even be a political issue. It would be a terrorist attack. Period.

The people to blame for dead Americans are the ones shooting at them with heavy weapons, and those who organised the attack.

True. However, who is to blame for inadequate security? Who is to blame for ignoring the threats? Who is to blame for a "safe house" that did not meet the State Department standards?

There are questions to ask about what the Admisinstration knew and what it did (and the key is which parts, not assuming that the President is omniscient). However, it strikes me as cheap and tawdry to use dead Americans as a political football.

It would be. I'm not sure that it is not the Administration who is playing politics. After campaigning across the country and on national TV on the "Bin Laden is dead . . . " meme, this was a potential embarrassment. Instead of handling it as an attack on sovereign American territory, resulting in the death of 4 Americans, the Administration has handled this like a political problem.

That is wrong.

I agree that Obama may not be to blame for the dead. However, the people he has placed in position are to blame. That shows his leadership (or lack thereof), does it not?

Clinton (Libya)
Holder (Fast and Furious)
Geithner (Tax liabilities, LIBOR)
Sebelius (Kansas and Planned Parenthood)
Napolitano (Fast and Furious)
Chu (Solyndra et. al.)
Duncan (Atlanta cheating scandal)
Bryson (Hit and Run)
Salazar (MMS Impropriety)
Biden (Don't get me started...)

I have serious question with the people that Obama has surrounded himself with. Not that people are perfect, but when a mistake occurs, there must be someone to answer for it. I don't see any repercussions for failure in this administration.

Maybe we should compare this with the pre-9/11 intelligence failures or that administration's attempt to obfuscate what occurred.

The distortion of the facts (of this terrorist attack) is terrible, but within the context of swapping out Obama for Romney with his cadre of Bush people it's a toothless point. Vote 3rd party with me and let's send them a message of our ill content.

Or even Katrina. As far as I know, Bush did not cause Katrina, but the response was tepid at best from FEMA and Local Gov't. Bush should have fired the FEMA director.

Neal Anderth wrote:Maybe we should compare this with the pre-9/11 intelligence failures or that administration's attempt to obfuscate what occurred.

Apples and atom bombs.

There is video of the attack on the consulate. There was NO justification for making it about a protest over a movie that turned violent.

Fast & Furious is x100 more a crime by the Administration as compared to this. This is the day to day nonsense of twisting a story for political reasons. Not epic by Washington standards of malfeasance.

I have to agree with Neal on this one. There are plenty of scandals around, and the Libya security issue at this time is monor compared to the complete lack of Constitutional regard by this administration

bbauska wrote:I have to agree with Neal on this one. There are plenty of scandals around, and the Libya security issue at this time is monor compared to the complete lack of Constitutional regard by this administration

Sure, except they keep lying about it.

Why?

Dr. Fate wrote:

"Yeah, well, all I was saying is right here:

Marine Security Guards are responsible for providing security at about 125 U.S. embassies and consulates around the world. Those on MSG duty are primarily responsible for embassies' interior security, normally the lobby or main entrance. Guards are trained to react to terrorist acts as well as a variety of emergencies such as fires, riots, demonstrations and evacuations.

Like I said, I have nothing but respect and appreciation for the MSGs. I also point out that the figure cited above represents only slightly over half of the overseas posts that the State Department maintains. The fact that you cite the story about Marines at the Embassy in Bridgetown suggests that you either don't really understand what MSGs do and how they are deployed, or you are deliberately trying to use misleading information to make an emotional point.


Dr. Fate:
"As for whether there was sufficient security, how is that even debatable?"


It is a logical fallacy to argue that because an event actually happened, it was always likely to happen. The State Department (which doesn't have unlimited resources, after all), has to make serious evaluations about what is an appropriate level of security for the potential threats that a post is likely to face. (If you think that Diplomatic Security agents don't take this responsibility to ensure the security of U.S. diplomats, their friends and colleagues, very seriously, then I suggest that you don't know any DS agents.) It is simply not possible to provide security against all possible threats.

I do acknowledge that the answer may well be that there was insufficient security, and that the Department may have dropped the ball, but the case may not be the slam-dunk you think it is. It is important to understand the case in context; hindsight is always 20/20. The simple fact is that the Benghazi compound was attacked by an aggressive, very well-armed force. A majority of U.S. posts around the world would have been overwhelmed by such an assault. Most U.S. posts do not have sufficient organic security capability to resist such an assault; we do rely on the host governments. Benghazi had nine-foot walls topped with razor wire, steel barricades, and nine well-armed security personnel (four local, five U.S.). Would this amount of security have been sufficient to counter any of the prior incidents known to the Mission in the months leading up to 9/11/12? Maybe yes. If so, could or should Post have anticipated a larger incident, such as actually occurred? Again, maybe yes. I note that even in Benghazi the (not-to-standard) safe-havens did their job, keeping U.S. personnel safe from the attackers. The two people who died were overcome by smoke inhalation.

Again, I don't necessarily disagree with the conclusion that there should have been better security - and Libya is by no means a typical post; the security environment is quite a bit different. But to start the conversation from an inaccurate, and overinflated notion of the level of security at U.S. diplomatic facilities overseas can easily lead to an overinflated judgement of wrong-doing.

So while you can argue that since people were killed, ipso facto, security was not adequate, it is not crystal clear that reasonable professionals, with the same information, would not have made the same decisions on security levels.

Dr. Fate wrote:

"True. However, who is to blame for inadequate security? Who is to blame for ignoring the threats? Who is to blame for a "safe house" that did not meet the State Department standards?"

Inadequate in hindsight; again, it’s not yet certain that it was not a reasonable level given the information available before-hand. You have presented zero evidence to demonstrate that the threats were ignored. I suggest that the threats were seriously evaluated and a decision was made on a level of security. If it proves that that decision was mistaken, that still does not prove that the threats were ignored. Making such a charge smacks of demagoguery. Same with the comment about the “safe-house” [safe haven]; especially since, even if it did not meet State Department standards, it still performed its function to keep intruders away from Department personnel.

Rudewalrus wrote:Dr. Fate:
"As for whether there was sufficient security, how is that even debatable?"


It is a logical fallacy to argue that because an event actually happened, it was always likely to happen. The State Department (which doesn't have unlimited resources, after all), has to make serious evaluations about what is an appropriate level of security for the potential threats that a post is likely to face. (If you think that Diplomatic Security agents don't take this responsibility to ensure the security of U.S. diplomats, their friends and colleagues, very seriously, then I suggest that you don't know any DS agents.) It is simply not possible to provide security against all possible threats.

First, it is dishonest to twist what I said. I did not say "it was always likely to happen." I did say it's pretty obvious there was not sufficient security.

Second, I'm not the only one who said this. Unfortunately, others who requested more security were denied this by someone in the State Department.

Third, the "safe house" did not meet the State Department standards in terms of security.

Fourth, it was 9/11. There were threats made against the consulate the day before. There had been several attacks over the preceding months, including IED's.

Fifth, intel knew about extremist activity in the area.

Sixth, if there was enough money to have Marines in Barbados on 9/11, money wasn't the issue.

I do acknowledge that the answer may well be that there was insufficient security, and that the Department may have dropped the ball, but the case may not be the slam-dunk you think it is. It is important to understand the case in context; hindsight is always 20/20. The simple fact is that the Benghazi compound was attacked by an aggressive, very well-armed force.

Which the President and his Administration lied about/obfuscated for weeks.

Again, I don't necessarily disagree with the conclusion that there should have been better security - and Libya is by no means a typical post; the security environment is quite a bit different. But to start the conversation from an inaccurate, and overinflated notion of the level of security at U.S. diplomatic facilities overseas can easily lead to an overinflated judgement of wrong-doing.

So while you can argue that since people were killed, ipso facto, security was not adequate, it is not crystal clear that reasonable professionals, with the same information, would not have made the same decisions on security levels.

I'd just point you to the testimony before Congress from the State Department and the former head of security. If you think no one dropped the ball, we just disagree.

Dr. Fate wrote:

"True. However, who is to blame for inadequate security? Who is to blame for ignoring the threats? Who is to blame for a "safe house" that did not meet the State Department standards?"

Inadequate in hindsight; again, it’s not yet certain that it was not a reasonable level given the information available before-hand. You have presented zero evidence to demonstrate that the threats were ignored.

What would be YOUR evidence that the threats were heeded? What is YOUR evidence that on 9/11, of all days, security was enhanced?

I suggest that the threats were seriously evaluated and a decision was made on a level of security. If it proves that that decision was mistaken, that still does not prove that the threats were ignored. Making such a charge smacks of demagoguery. Same with the comment about the “safe-house” [safe haven]; especially since, even if it did not meet State Department standards, it still performed its function to keep intruders away from Department personnel.

I suggest that you are trying, in a very nice way, to defend the indefensible. However, you've offered no proof for your accusations. We simply have your opinion.

Now, you may be right that those folks, including our ambassador, were going to be killed even if more security was provided. You are wrong to suggest, sans any evidence whatsoever, that sufficient care was taken to protect them--in light of previous attacks and the anniversary of 9/11, since terrorists are known to favor such dates.

Doctor Fate wrote:First, it is dishonest to twist what I said. I did not say "it was always likely to happen." I did say it's pretty obvious there was not sufficient security.

Really? Threats are evaluated on a continuum, from highly unlikely to highly likely. Unless you have unlimited resources, you would not expend a lot of effort securing against highly unlikey threats. By the same token, you would expend effort to protect against likely threats. You have argued that it is beyond question that there was insufficient security in Benghazi, implying that the attack that occured on 9/11 was predictable and should have been secured against, i.e. that it was sufficiently likely to happen that higher security was needed. That is effectively similar to saying it was always likely to happen.

Second, I'm not the only one who said this. Unfortunately, others who requested more security were denied this by someone in the State Department.

Third, the "safe house" did not meet the State Department standards in terms of security.

What is your point, exactly? The report indicates that the attackers attempted to break into the safehaven protecting the U.S. personnel, but where unable to do so, leading them to set fire to the entire building. It would thus appear that even the 'sub-standard' safehaven nevertheless performed its basic function.

Fourth, it was 9/11. There were threats made against the consulate the day before. There had been several attacks over the preceding months, including IED's.

Fifth, intel knew about extremist activity in the area.

Yes, there were threats, and prior attacks (although nothing like what occurred on 9/11). Perhaps intel did know about extremist activity in the area. Without knowing the particulars of the threats and the intel, I would argue that it is not obvious that an attack of the scale that occurred should have been predicted.

Sixth, if there was enough money to have Marines in Barbados on 9/11, money wasn't the issue.

Marines in Barbados are a red herring; of course they were on duty there on 9/11, there is an MSG detachment stationed there. At the 100+ posts where there is no MSG detachment they were not on duty. Money is an issue, insofar as it is not possible to protect against all possible threats. Which brings us back to how you assess the threats. It’s a judgment call.

Dr. Fate wrote:

"True. However, who is to blame for inadequate security? Who is to blame for ignoring the threats? Who is to blame for a "safe house" that did not meet the State Department standards?"

Inadequate in hindsight; again, it’s not yet certain that it was not a reasonable level given the information available before-hand. You have presented zero evidence to demonstrate that the threats were ignored.

What would be YOUR evidence that the threats were heeded? What is YOUR evidence that on 9/11, of all days, security was enhanced?

I’m not the one making accusations and looking for someone to blame. If you are going to make charges like that, implicitly suggesting misconduct or gross negligence, it is reasonable to expect that you can show the alleged action (i.e. ignoring of threats) actually occurred.

I never claimed that security was enhanced on 9/11, why are you asking for evidence for a claim I didn’t make? For what it’s worth, though, I think that the record does show that in recognition of the date, Amb. Stevens chose to limit his activities that day to the compound.

I suggest that you are trying, in a very nice way, to defend the indefensible. However, you've offered no proof for your accusations. We simply have your opinion.

I’m not trying to defend the indefensible; I’m objecting to a rush to judgment. I have my opinion, and you have yours. I would like to wait for the outcome of a full investigation [from Under Secretary of State Kennedy’s Congressional testimony: “The Secretary has already appointed an Accountability Review Board led by Ambassador Thomas Pickering, a retired career Foreign Service Officer with an impeccable record. His board also includes former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, as well as Hugh Turner, Richard Shinnick, and Catherine Bertini, all of whom are distinguished public servants with long experience in diplomacy, intelligence, development and management.
Last week, the board began its work to determine whether our security systems and procedures were appropriate in light of the threat environment, whether those systems and procedures were properly implemented, and any lessons that may be relevant to our work around the world. The Secretary has asked the Board to work as quickly and transparently as possible, without sacrificing diligence and accuracy.”] You appear to have already decided that people didn’t do their job properly, and seem to be seeking to use the incident to thereby condemn the Administration.

Now, you may be right that those folks, including our ambassador, were going to be killed even if more security was provided.

I never once made that claim; now it is you who is putting words into my mouth. Interestingly enough, however, Eric Nordstrom, the former Regional Security Officer (RSO) responsible for security at the U.S. Mission in Libya, did make something like that claim. In testimony before Congress he said: “Let me say a word about the evening of September 11th. The ferocity and intensity of the attack was nothing that we had seen in Libya, or that I had seen in my time in the Diplomatic Security Service. Having an extra foot of wall, or an extra-half dozen guards or agents would not have enabled us to respond to that kind of assault.”

Regarding the scale of the assault, I note that, later in the evening, around 11pm, after additional security personnel had arrived from the annex, and there were 40 members of the Libyan 17th February Brigade (a unit given good marks by the RSO) fighting in support of U.S. personnel, a decision was made that the area around the main building could still not be held.

You are wrong to suggest, sans any evidence whatsoever, that sufficient care was taken to protect them--in light of previous attacks and the anniversary of 9/11, since terrorists are known to favor such dates.

What I am suggesting is that U.S. Mission personnel were operating in what all understood to be a dangerous environment, but that the assault that occurred on 9/11 vastly exceeded assessments of the likely threat. To argue that because people died in the assault someone in the State Department was necessarily negligent is either sloppy logic or deliberately inflammatory. I have faith that a full investigation will determine if there was negligence or not. Until all of the factors have been examined, however, I’m not prepared to start laying blame – or to label this an “epic scandal.”

Rudewalrus wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:First, it is dishonest to twist what I said. I did not say "it was always likely to happen." I did say it's pretty obvious there was not sufficient security.

Really? Threats are evaluated on a continuum, from highly unlikely to highly likely. Unless you have unlimited resources, you would not expend a lot of effort securing against highly unlikey threats. By the same token, you would expend effort to protect against likely threats. You have argued that it is beyond question that there was insufficient security in Benghazi, implying that the attack that occured on 9/11 was predictable and should have been secured against, i.e. that it was sufficiently likely to happen that higher security was needed. That is effectively similar to saying it was always likely to happen.

Let's see . . . "implying" . . . "sufficiently likely" . . . "effectively similar."

Lots of qualifying statements, I would say, concluding with ". . . effectively similar to saying it was always likely to happen."

No, wrong, incorrect, false.

However, when establishing a consulate in a country recently overthrown, in an area where Islamists were gaining strength, in an area where an attempt on the British ambassador's life was made, where two attacks with explosives had been made on our consulate, and where Britain had left because of the violence, one might want to err a bit on the side of caution, I would think.

Why did I say it was obvious there was insufficient security? For all the reasons I just mentioned, and more:

Furthermore, according to the testimony of whistleblowers that approached the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Islamist militants posted threats to the consulate on Facebook prior to the attacks. Militants claimed responsibility for a May 22 attack on a Red Cross facility and called that attack a “message for the Americans disturbing the skies over Derna” in a post on the online social network.

The details of the threats to the consulate were put in a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA). That letter was obtained by the Daily Beast and Lake.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), a cosignatory of the letter to Clinton, told the Daily Beat that the whistleblowers in question were “people who have firsthand knowledge of the incidents themselves.”

Last week, Lake reported that multiple intelligence sources had alleged that Obama administration officials knew that the events of September 11 resulted from a coordinated, multi-stage terror attack and not a spontaneous uprising. United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice asserted on multiple Sunday news programs following the attack that it was the administration’s belief that the attacks were not premeditated.

Lake’s report details a number of security threats which Western diplomatic personnel have faced in Libya, including a May 1 carjacking in which a member of the American embassy’s security forces was “beaten and detained” by militant youth. He was eventually freed after Libyan forces engaged in a firefight with assailants to recover the captive. In another incident in June, an attacker fired a rocket-propelled grenade at a convoy carrying a member of the British diplomatic staff.

In other words, this was not a nice, quiet neighborhood.

Fourth, it was 9/11. There were threats made against the consulate the day before. There had been several attacks over the preceding months, including IED's.

Fifth, intel knew about extremist activity in the area.

Yes, there were threats, and prior attacks (although nothing like what occurred on 9/11). Perhaps intel did know about extremist activity in the area. Without knowing the particulars of the threats and the intel, I would argue that it is not obvious that an attack of the scale that occurred should have been predicted.

Not what I said. I never said they could have predicted the size and scope.

However, it certainly seems they took a minimalist approach to security, denying requests and keeping a very small team.

Sixth, if there was enough money to have Marines in Barbados on 9/11, money wasn't the issue.

Marines in Barbados are a red herring; of course they were on duty there on 9/11, there is an MSG detachment stationed there. At the 100+ posts where there is no MSG detachment they were not on duty. Money is an issue, insofar as it is not possible to protect against all possible threats. Which brings us back to how you assess the threats. It’s a judgment call.

Well, if money is the red herring, please tell the Democrats to stop raising it.

If it's a judgment call, it was a very bad one.

I’m not the one making accusations and looking for someone to blame. If you are going to make charges like that, implicitly suggesting misconduct or gross negligence, it is reasonable to expect that you can show the alleged action (i.e. ignoring of threats) actually occurred.

I never claimed that security was enhanced on 9/11, why are you asking for evidence for a claim I didn’t make? For what it’s worth, though, I think that the record does show that in recognition of the date, Amb. Stevens chose to limit his activities that day to the compound.

So, the State Department and all involved did a fine job, but just miscalculated?

I’m not trying to defend the indefensible; I’m objecting to a rush to judgment.

Unlike Ambassador Susan Rice?

Until all of the factors have been examined, however, I’m not prepared to start laying blame – or to label this an “epic scandal.”

I think I finally get this.

I'm not saying the attack is the "epic scandal." I'm not saying the lack of security is the "epic scandal." I think it was a mistake and a grossly negligent one, but not a scandal.

No, the scandal was lying to the American people, telling them it was about the video. They either didn't know, in which case they should have said, "We don't know yet," or they did know and deliberately lied.

I think, based on the evidence we've seen so far, it was the latter.

Funny thing: Romney punted on this and now the media is kicking in. CBS reports the Administration knew, from the beginning, this was terrorism. So, why didn't they tell the truth for weeks?

CBS News has obtained email alerts that were put out by the State Department as the attack unfolded. Four Americans were killed in the attack, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

These emails contain the earliest description so far of what happened at Benghazi the night of the attack.

At 4:05 p.m. Eastern time, on September 11, an alert from the State Department Operations Center was issued to a number government and intelligence agencies. Included were the White House Situation Room, the office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the FBI.

"US Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack" -- "approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well. Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four COM (Chief of Mission/embassy) personnel are in the compound safe haven."

At 4:54 p.m., less than an hour later, another alert: "the firing... in Benghazi...has stopped...A response team is on site attempting to locate COM (embassy) personnel."

Then, at 6:07 p.m., State sent out another alert saying the embassy in Tripoli reported the Islamic military group "Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibilty for Benghazi Attack"... "on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli."

Whether Obama wins or not, this is an epic fail.