[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

There was also a lot of evidence at the time that it was inspired by the video. Interviews of those on the ground said it was about the video. There were many threats to embassy locations about the video...oh, and that little incident in Egypt where they did actually storm the embassy.

I guess those interviews on the ground didn't involve queries of those who were actually responsible for the attack. Or maybe those interviewed were lying. It is well known that Islamic Jihad requires you to lie to the enemy if that is useful in conquering him. So why immediately go to the "it was the video" rather than waiting for confirmation of responsibility, especially if there was strong evidence that it was terrorism?

I've never heard there was any actionable intelligence that the attack was coming, just bigger threats and an escalating security situation.

Did you just answer your own hearing. Threats, bigger threats, escalating security situation . . . and no response.

Like what? This entire argument has been debunked by just about every organization involved. It's kept alive by individual opinions and misinformation.

Apparently it has not been debunked. The question exists because no adequate answer has been given. And more information is not given in the face of requests for it. Relevant interviews and information is denied or made secret. That keeps it alive.

Saying something that's already been put to bed doesn't make it new news unless you can bring new evidence to light. They really didn't succeed here. The Mullen report is pretty damning on the State department for what went wrong.


The investigations have already shown that internal alarms got caught up in the system...again, it's old news.

Mullen said the "security posture" was inadequate for "the threat environment in Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place that night." Which is exactly what those who asked for a better "posture" were saying and their requests were not addressed.

Mullen also said that there was an "inherent weakness of Libyan support element . . .an unarmed local contract guard force with skill deficits to secure the compound"--(which Morgan, the "new" guy in the 60 Minute piece, was hired to train, and which did what they could with that training, but being unarmed against well-armed trained and organized terrorists could only result in failure), and Mullen also said the "absence of a strong central government presence in Benghazi meant the Special Mission had to rely on a militia with uncertain reliability" which Morgan requested several times to be replaced because they would run rather than fight--which they did.

Mullen mentions "security systems and procedures" being "implemented properly by American personnel, but those systems themselves and the Libyan response fell short . . ." as if the system was at fault. But does the "system" absolve personnel and leadership from implanting it in environments where threats are high, local support is inadequate or harmful, and not enough resources are given to address the problems, and no resources are given in response to requests for it? Doubtful.

He said "It is not reasonable, nor feasible to tether US forces at the ready to respond to protect every high-risk post in the world." If it's not feasible, then why place them there? Why deploy personnel to low or no risk embassies instead of high risk ones.? Why cut defense spending instead of "non-essential" discretionary items? Why not deploy and supply high risk posts if you want to maintain them?

He says "there was no immediate tactical warning of the Sept. 11 attacks"--yet there were warnings before the "immediate" event. waiting for "immediate" warnings while disregarding those along the way assures chicken-with- head-cut off response--failure.

He says "increased violence and targeting of foreign diplomats and international organizations in Benghazi failed to come into clear relief against a backdrop of ineffective local governance, widespread political violence, and inter-militia fighting, as well as the growth of extremist camps and militias in Libya." Whether the "relief" was "clear" or muddy it was apparently fraught with danger, and to "partner" with local governance in that "relief" with its "backdrop" of uncertainty and violence, to secure the safety of our people, seems to be an incompetent administrative decision.

He says "we did conclude that certain State Department bureau-level senior officials in critical positions of authority and responsibility in Washington demonstrated a lack of leadership and management ability appropriate for senior ranks in their responses to security concerns posed by the Special Mission."--Guess the buck stops with the bureaucrats, not their boss.

Some Republicans called the Pickering/Mullen report a "whitewash."

Democrats found significant fault with the State Department for establishing Benghazi as a 'temporary post' without the full security of an embassy or consulate that could provide at least some ammunition for criticism of Clinton . . ."--Yahoo News.

And you don't attribute something to al Qaeda unless you have evidence. The video describes the "al Qaeda terrorists" like they've come to the conclusion this was planned and executed as a major al Qaeda attack. To date I've never seen any evidence of this. It was carried out by a local militia some members of whom had links to al Qaeda...that al Qaeda was gaining strength would make them a suspect but doesn't assign guilt. There were/are a lot of factions in the region who don't like us.

-spence

And you don't attribute the attack to an obscure video alone before you investigate the large evidence of terrorist culpability, including, and especially, Al Qaeda involvement. Al Qaeda is comprised of a network of regional factions, militias, individuals, who support it. You have seen NO evidence of a major Al Qaeda attack? Interesting.