danivon wrote:See, now, that wasn't hard.

Apparently Stevens twice declined offers of more security for Benghazi in the form of a special security team from the US. Should he have been overruled, and by whom?

One of whom was Stevens, who declined offers of more security.

Don't all of these things relate to events after the attack started (and most of them after it finished). The people most'accountable' are those who killed the '4 Americans'. I think that they will be happy that the US is turning on itself over the episode.

It's trite to say the terrorists are alone responsible.

It would indeed be trite to say that. It would also be dishonest to say that is what I was saying. I have emphasised the relevant text in the text of mine you quoted.

Oh, and btw, how is it possible that none of them have been brought to justice?

Because Libya is a large and unstable country which is easy to hide in?

So let’s see if I have this right: A CNN reporter goes to a coffee shop at a well-known hotel in Benghazi and for two hours chit-chats with a man who some believe was the ringleader of the terrorist gang that murdered four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya — and almost a year after the attack the FBI either can’t figure out how to find this guy or has no interest in even trying to find him.

Really? A newsman with nothing more than a tape recorder and a pencil and paper interviews a prime suspect in the September 11, 2012 massacre, but the U.S. government hasn’t gotten around to it yet?

You may recall that after the attack President Obama promised to bring those responsible to justice. So far, no one has been captured, killed or brought to anything even vaguely resembling justice. Benghazi happened a long time ago and you get the impression the president would be happy if no one ever brought the subject up again.

But the other day, CNN reporter Arwa Damon sat down with Ahmed Abu Khattala, who has been described by Libyan and U.S. officials as the leader of Ansar al-Sharia, a militia outfit affiliated with al Qaeda. Was Khattala nervous during the interview? Was he constantly looking over his shoulder? Nope. The CNN reporter says Khattala was fairly relaxed.

That's a failure of leadership up and down the chain of command. It's not "turning on (ourselves)" to hold those who failed to act accountable for their failures.

It is, however, to spend nearly two year raking over every tiny detail, in an attempt to focus blame on a single person (the President), accepting at face value any outlandish allegations and using it for internal political reasons. I'm sure that the Democrats are not blameless either, but that's not the point - a house divided against itself cannot stand.

“Here’s what’s more disconcerting. Their [Republicans] willingness to say no to everything — the fact that since 2007, they have filibustered about 500 pieces of legislation that would help the middle class just gives you a sense of how opposed they are to any progress — has actually led to an increase in cynicism and discouragement among the people who were counting on us to fight for them.”. . .

The Pinocchio Test

On just about every level, this claim is ridiculous.

We realize that Senate rules are complex and difficult to understand, but the president did serve in the Senate and should be familiar with its terms and procedures. Looking at the numbers, he might have been able to make a case that Republicans have blocked about 50 bills that he had wanted passed, such as an increase in the minimum wage. But instead he inflated the numbers to such an extent that he even included votes in which he, as senator, supported a filibuster.

Four Pinocchios

The attack on Benghazi was on 9/11. Historically, AQ and other terrorists have sought to attack on familiar dates. So, there is no excuse for us not having contingency plans on 9/11 in a Muslim country in an area known to be crawling with Islamic extremists and terrorists.

Maybe they thought they had enough contingency with the heavily armed CIA guys minutes away. It's easy with hindsight to suggest that there should have been loads of extra security and back-up all over the place, but that may still not have been sufficient to contain such an attack.

Is DF saying that we should make public classified CIA information that may potentially impact current activities?

I doubt that is the case. Are we still using Libya to run weapons to Syria? I find that a questionable notion. If you have any evidence, I'd be fascinated to read it.

...

I still doubt that is the case and I'd still be fascinated to read any evidence supporting the trial balloon you're floating.

How would I have evidence concerning classified CIA information? Neither of us should know what it is (I never mentioned Syria, btw). I am not floating any balloons about what that classified information is, just asking whether you are really saying we should make it public (not yourself knowing what it is). You seem to be prejudging the content, but avoiding my actual question.

freeman3 wrote:Christ was what 33 years old when he died. I seem to recall that he was actually born in about 6 bc. So, yes, there were actually no Christians back then and the radio was sloppy about the date (or maybe not, it does not sound the same to say 30 AD).

freeman3 wrote:Christ was what 33 years old when he died. I seem to recall that he was actually born in about 6 bc. So, yes, there were actually no Christians back then and the radio was sloppy about the date (or maybe not, it does not sound the same to say 30 AD).

bbauska wrote:

freeman3 wrote:Christ was what 33 years old when he died. I seem to recall that he was actually born in about 6 bc. So, yes, there were actually no Christians back then and the radio was sloppy about the date (or maybe not, it does not sound the same to say 30 AD).

http://www.datesandevents.org/people-timelines/36-timeline-of-jesus.htm

This might help. Jesus was 30 when his ministry started. (AD 24-26)

Ray Jay wrote:

bbauska wrote:

freeman3 wrote:Christ was what 33 years old when he died. I seem to recall that he was actually born in about 6 bc. So, yes, there were actually no Christians back then and the radio was sloppy about the date (or maybe not, it does not sound the same to say 30 AD).

http://www.datesandevents.org/people-timelines/36-timeline-of-jesus.htm

This might help. Jesus was 30 when his ministry started. (AD 24-26)

Great timeline ... thanks ... it's humorous that Freeman (who I understand is not a believer) to use the name "Christ" while Brad (who I understand to be a believer) uses the name "Jesus".

Even so, reporters should do their jobs. The White House would have us believe not only that those still interested in Benghazi are conspiracy nuts, but that the Benghazi attacks are old news, that all relevant questions have been answered, and that the White House offered cheerful and eager cooperation with various inquiries.

That’s not true.

Consider what we’ve seen just over the past two months:

• After repeatedly suggesting that they’d released all documents related to the Benghazi talking points, the administration was forced by a court to release some previously withheld emails. The White House explanation for its stonewalling? That the documents released as part of a FOIA request for documents about Benghazi were not, in fact, about Benghazi. This isn’t a good-faith misunderstanding, it’s an obvious attempt to deceive.

• Among the newly released documents were redacted versions of emails. Why the redactions? These originally unclassified emails were classified on February 5, 2014, long after they’d been requested under the Freedom of Information Act and separately subpoenaed by congressional oversight committees. Those newly classified emails are currently scheduled to be released without the redactions years after Obama has left the White House—some in 2019, others in 2027, and still others in 2037.

• Obama administration officials have long claimed that Susan Rice was simply repeating intelligence community talking points in her September 16, 2012, television appearances. But those talking points didn’t once mention the anti-Islam video that Rice placed at the center of her narrative. Indeed, in the 100 pages of emails related to the talking points, released by the White House in May 2013, the video was mentioned just twice—once on a list of cables and again as the subject line on an email concerning a White House meeting. If the intelligence community had believed that the video was the proximate cause of the Benghazi attacks, one assumes intelligence officials might have discussed it in emails. When former deputy CIA director Michael Morell was asked last month about Rice’s reliance on the video, he testified: “When she talked about the video, my reaction was that was not something the analysts attributed this attack to.”

• Jay Carney and others repeatedly claimed that intelligence officials were responsible for all of the substantive changes to the original Benghazi talking points. Carney insisted the White House had made just one “stylistic” mistake. Hillary Clinton testified that the intelligence community was the “principal decider” on the talking points. But an internal CIA email reported that the State Department had “major reservations” about the talking points and that “we revised the documents with their concerns in mind.” In all, objections from Obama officials resulted in all or part of four paragraphs of the six-paragraph talking points being removed—148 of 248 words.

Now there are more questions about those edits. When Fox News’s Bret Baier asked former National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor whether he had changed “attacks” to “demonstrations,” surely something that would qualify as a substantive change, Vietor allowed that it was possible he had. “Maybe. I don’t remember,” he said.

• The top military intelligence official at U.S. Africa Command, whose job it was to determine responsibility for the attacks, concluded almost immediately that they were the work of al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists. This view was included in a Defense Intelligence Agency assessment published two days after the attacks, on September 13, 2012.

• Over the past six weeks, the Obama administration turned over some 3,200 pages of previously withheld Benghazi documents to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. These are documents that were subpoenaed in August 2013.

Add these recent developments to the vast landscape of previously discredited claims from top administration officials—on al Qaeda involvement, on the talking points, on the video, on transparency—and you have an issue that demands further investigation.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:See, now, that wasn't hard.

That tone is not appropriate given that I have maintained that position from the moment I found out about the previous attacks.

Apparently Stevens twice declined offers of more security for Benghazi in the form of a special security team from the US. Should he have been overruled, and by whom?

It's trite to say the terrorists are alone responsible.

It would indeed be trite to say that. It would also be dishonest to say that is what I was saying. I have emphasised the relevant text in the text of mine you quoted.

If the CIA is less competent than CNN, maybe we should contract our intel ops out?

Michael Calderone wrote:U.S. forces planned to capture Khattala in October, but dropped the mission following the fallout from a separate raid in Tripoli.

Michael Calderone wrote:So why doesn't Khattala seem concerned about being captured in these reports?

"Another U.S. raid would cause things to go out of control,'' Wanis Bukhamada, the head of Libya's special forces, told The Times of London. "There would be a lot of retaliation. You couldn't tell what might happen.''

That point was echoed by officials Friday, telling the Post that another raid "could lead to the toppling of [Libyan Prime Minister Ali] Zeidan's government and increase the chaos in a country that the United States would like to see stabilize."

You are falling into a familiar pattern: you toss a grenade; there is an explosion.

There are a lot of things we don't know.

That's why we need an investigation.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:See, now, that wasn't hard.

That tone is not appropriate given that I have maintained that position from the moment I found out about the previous attacks.

The tone was because when I asked an "Is" question, to which you are saying you have a clear answer, instead of giving it, you decided to answer with another question about what the UK did.

Apparently Stevens twice declined offers of more security for Benghazi in the form of a special security team from the US. Should he have been overruled, and by whom?

I would maintain it should have been overruled by everyone above him in the chain of command. He was simply wrong. It is entirely possible that his emotional investment with the Libyan people clouded his judgment. Someone should have examined the facts and dispassionately made the right call.

“That is odd to me because Stevens requested from the State Department additional security four times, and there was an 18-person special forces security team headed by Lt. Col. Wood that Gen. Ham signed off on that the State Department said no to,” Graham told McClatchy.

He added: “The records are very clear that people on the ground in Libya made numerous requests for additional security that were either denied or only partially granted.”

And Stevens did say no, when faced with this question from Ham. But he wasn’t saying no to an opportunity to have a big enough security force. He was saying no to an offer he didn’t have the authority to accept.

The State Department’s policy was to let the existing, DOD-provided security team go, and seek security support from the Libyans. Stevens had been arguing against that policy – Hicks gives chapter and verse on that – but he was losing.

Significantly, the DOD-provided team whose term was almost up at the time worked for State (meaning it reported to Stevens), and had diplomatic immunity for anything it might have to do to ensure security for the U.S. mission in country. If Stevens accepted a special forces team from Ham, it would be a on a different basis.

Two factors made the offer from Ham a non-starter for Stevens. One, it wasn’t in his power to override State policy. His uncommunicative “no’s” to General Ham were a way of complying with State policy, without airing the internal debate between him and his superiors.

Two, the issue of diplomatic immunity mattered. The U.S. had no status of forces agreement with Libya, the standard instrument by which the purview of U.S. military security forces is established between America and a foreign country where our forces operate. If a special forces team was there as part of the U.S. diplomatic mission, it had immunity; if it was there under DOD command, its status was unnegotiated: existing in a sort of twilight zone in which its actions – which could well include killing Libyans – would make our soldiers vulnerable to arrest and prosecution, and create major problems for Stevens and the U.S. government.

Hicks indicates that he testified to these considerations before the Senate committee:

I was interviewed by the Select Committee and its staff, who were professional and thorough. I explained this sequence of events. For some reason, my explanation did not make it into the Senate report.

In the WSJ piece, he gives a full, blow-by-blow accounting of the sequence of events he refers to. I have no trouble believing his account, which accords with everything I know about chains of command, procedure, and interagency dealings. Ambassador Stevens wasn’t in a position to simply accept a special forces team from General Ham on his own recognizance.

Victim blaming is a little much.

"Another U.S. raid would cause things to go out of control,'' Wanis Bukhamada, the head of Libya's special forces, told The Times of London. "There would be a lot of retaliation. You couldn't tell what might happen.''

That point was echoed by officials Friday, telling the Post that another raid "could lead to the toppling of [Libyan Prime Minister Ali] Zeidan's government and increase the chaos in a country that the United States would like to see stabilize."

Instead of answering the question, you went into the attack.

Please accept that it is a hypothetical question - if there is no classified CIA information that would have a bearing on current activities, then it is fully moot. But if there is, would you still want to have it released to get to the truth of what happened in Benghazi?

How many have there been so far?

rickyp wrote:There have been 13 separate hearings on Ben Ghazi. And yet, there are, according to Fate, many questions left unanswered...
The question remains why would a 14th hearing achieve anything in the way of what republicans want to hear that their intensive questioning hasn't in the the first 13 hearings?

Have the Inquisitors been totally incompetent up to now? If so, what magic elixar have they drunk that's going to allow them to find the right line of questioning to get to what they feel is the hidden truth?

If the truth is somethiing other than what the grounded world understands it to be, largely an intelligence failure of the CIA, and interdepartment infighting and lack of communication ...
Then the inquisitors in the first 13 hearings have been as competent as Donald trumps detectives looking for Obama's real birth certificate...

And the 14th hearing will amount to butkiss because its the same load of clowns in the car as the last time...

More power, fewer time limits

If this was just "intelligence failure," then you have to ask yourself this: who is dumb enough to see terrorists drive the Brits and Red Cross out, see their own compound attacked twice, and be warned IN WRITING another one was coming, and do . . . nothing?

rickyp wrote:fate

More power, fewer time limits

.
Sure. Because 13 hearings didn't give them enough time.....


fate

If this was just "intelligence failure," then you have to ask yourself this: who is dumb enough to see terrorists drive the Brits and Red Cross out, see their own compound attacked twice, and be warned IN WRITING another one was coming, and do . . . nothing?

Ben Ghazi (sic) was a CIA operation.
The same guys who made some significant intelligence failures elsewhere.

The State Department renewed the lease for the U.S. compound in Benghazi two months before the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attacks without requiring the facility to meet normal security standards. That news comes from an interview Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., conducted with a survivor of the attacks.

The survivor, a State Department diplomatic security agent whose name isn’t being disclosed, spoke behind closed doors in late November to Senators Graham, Bob Corker, R-Tenn., and Robert Menendez, D-N.J. The previously-undisclosed existence of the year-long lease calls into question the State Department’s designation of the compound as “temporary” and therefore exempt from normal security requirements. …

The lease renewal came shortly after a June 2012 assault in which an improvised explosive device blew a giant hole in the exterior wall of the facility. Graham also says he learned that in addition to other denied requests, the State Department’s Regional Security Officer for Libya asked for stronger security for the compound in August 2012 but it was denied. The State Department told CBS News that the August 2012 request for more security was not submitted to headquarters, so there was no denial.

“Don’t you imagine that if Congress had known that someone renewed a formal lease for one year at the same time it called the facility ‘temporary’ and exempted it from security standards that we would have had a lot of questions about it?” Graham said in an interview with CBS News.

Speaking at a press conference, Panetta said there needs to be an investigation to lay out the full story to the public. “The problem has been sometimes bits and pieces of information keep coming out” that raise more questions, he explained. Panetta added that he hopes House Democrats participate.

Morrell, speaking at the same press conference, concurred. He stated:

It might be surprising for you to hear me say this, but I am a supporter of the creation of this committee because I want all the facts to come together in one place and be presented. . .as one thing, so the American people can see all of this.

Panetta and Morrell are saying, in effect, that they have nothing to hide — Panetta in terms of the lack of a military response; Morrell in terms of an intelligence failure and/or an intelligence doctoring.