Hillary

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

The piece presents NOTHING that proves the Administration lied about the attack. What it does is juxtapose known information with narrow opinions to come to conclusions it couldn't defend if called to.

No, there is no absolute proof that someone has told a lie. Even an admission by the liar that he lied is not absolute proof. There is very strong evidence that the administration knew that the attack was not because of an anti-Muslim video. Besides the strong evidence, it makes far less sense that the attack was instigated by the video, and far more sense that the terrorist events leading up to it, and Al Qaeda's promise to attack Americans make it more likely that the event was terrorist inspired and executed.

Ultimately it comes down to the idea were our people left ti die...again, the piece provides NOTHING to contradict the notion the response was withheld.

Correct, the piece provides nothing to contradict the "notion" that a response was withheld. It actually provides things that SUPPORT the "notion" that it was withheld. And because of that our people were left to die.

Weak security has already been assessed and deemed a systemic failure within the State department...it's old news.

No, if it appeared on October 27 it is not old news. And by CBS not FOX. And the presentation implies something far worse than systemic failure . . . whatever that is. Systemic failure of security means that such failure in the State Dept. is built in, continuous, and unresolved. That is obviously not the case. But a failure that is either willful or incompetent is another matter, and can be attributed to personnel. And an effort to deflect the blame away from the persons responsible is lying.

Usually it's frowned upon. FOX was initially interested in his story but cut him off when he demanded to be paid. Doesn't sound like someone trying to get the truth out for a noble cause.

And yet FOX, and NBC, and CBS, and ABC, and CNN, and so on, all demand to be paid for trying to get the truth out, or even for obfuscating, distorting, and dismissing the truth. And a lot of them get paid far more than Morgan would have gotten. I'll put my bet on the guy who was there to tell the truth, paid or not, rather than the network "investigators" who ferret out, second or third hand, the "truth" they wish to report.

al Qaeda flags were already to have known to be flying, but that's a far cry from proof that al Qaeda led the attack. The State department documents which would capture any knowledge of advance warning have been part of multiple reviews.

Al Qaeda in Libya boasted that it would attack the Red Cross, the British Embassy, and the Americans. They made good on the first two threats. Lt. Colonel Andy Wood, based in Tripoli, warned State that he believed Al Qaeda was in the final planning stages for that third attack and it also became known that Abu Anas Al-Libi was in Libya to set up a terror network. Wood said the administration wouldn't relocate the consulate after the situation deteriorated before the attack.

Morgan Jones warnings and requests were ignored.

Hicks' request for help during the attack were ignored.

Ambassador Stevens' requests for more security were not responded to.

A series of attacks besides those on the Red Cross and British Embassy had taken place.

Al Qaeda flags were flying.

Nah, no proof that Al Qaeda had anything to do with the attack. More likely it was an obscure video.

Why hasn't the House led witch hunt produced any witches? It is nearly Halloween after all...

-spence

We have met the enemy, and he is us.

[scottw]

well that was a beat down in fantasy vs. reality

CNN And CBS...these guys are traitors to the cause I guess

Exclusive: Dozens of CIA operatives on the ground during Benghazi attack


CNN has uncovered exclusive new information about what is allegedly happening at the CIA, in the wake of the deadly Benghazi terror attack.

Four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, were killed in the assault by armed militants last September 11 in eastern Libya.

Sources now tell CNN dozens of people working for the CIA were on the ground that night, and that the agency is going to great lengths to make sure whatever it was doing, remains a secret.

CNN has learned the CIA is involved in what one source calls an unprecedented attempt to keep the spy agency's Benghazi secrets from ever leaking out.

Since January, some CIA operatives involved in the agency's missions in Libya, have been subjected to frequent, even monthly polygraph examinations, according to a source with deep inside knowledge of the agency's workings.

The goal of the questioning, according to sources, is to find out if anyone is talking to the media or Congress.

It is being described as pure intimidation, with the threat that any unauthorized CIA employee who leaks information could face the end of his or her career.

In exclusive communications obtained by CNN, one insider writes, "You don't jeopardize yourself, you jeopardize your family as well."

Another says, "You have no idea the amount of pressure being brought to bear on anyone with knowledge of this operation."

"Agency employees typically are polygraphed every three to four years. Never more than that," said former CIA operative and CNN analyst Robert Baer.

In other words, the rate of the kind of polygraphs alleged by sources is rare.

"If somebody is being polygraphed every month, or every two months it's called an issue polygraph, and that means that the polygraph division suspects something, or they're looking for something, or they're on a fishing expedition. But it's absolutely not routine at all to be polygraphed monthly, or bi-monthly," said Baer.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

There is very strong evidence that the administration knew that the attack was not because of an anti-Muslim video. Besides the strong evidence, it makes far less sense that the attack was instigated by the video, and far more sense that the terrorist events leading up to it, and Al Qaeda's promise to attack Americans make it more likely that the event was terrorist inspired and executed.

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

Correct, the piece provides nothing to contradict the "notion" that a response was withheld. It actually provides things that SUPPORT the "notion" that it was withheld. And because of that our people were left to die.

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

No, if it appeared on October 27 it is not old news. And by CBS not FOX. And the presentation implies something far worse than systemic failure . . . whatever that is. Systemic failure of security means that such failure in the State Dept. is built in, continuous, and unresolved. That is obviously not the case. But a failure that is either willful or incompetent is another matter, and can be attributed to personnel. And an effort to deflect the blame away from the persons responsible is lying.

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.

Al Qaeda in Libya boasted that it would attack the Red Cross, the British Embassy, and the Americans. They made good on the first two threats. Lt. Colonel Andy Wood, based in Tripoli, warned State that he believed Al Qaeda was in the final planning stages for that third attack and it also became known that Abu Anas Al-Libi was in Libya to set up a terror network. Wood said the administration wouldn't relocate the consulate after the situation deteriorated before the attack.

Morgan Jones warnings and requests were ignored.

Hicks' request for help during the attack were ignored.

Ambassador Stevens' requests for more security were not responded to.

A series of attacks besides those on the Red Cross and British Embassy had taken place.

Al Qaeda flags were flying.

Nah, no proof that Al Qaeda had anything to do with the attack. More likely it was an obscure video.

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

[FishermanTim]

Since lack of experience and lying about your past are now prerequisites for running for (and becoming) president, she's already won the election!

nothing more need be said.....

[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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

And you don't attribute the attack to an obscure video alone before you investigate the large evidence of terrorist culpability,.

If you are Hilary, and the 4 killed Americans were your employees, you also don't shriek that "it doesn't matter" how they were killed. How does that make the families feel, that the boss of their fallen fam,ily members doesn't care baout the circumstances in which they died.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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 think they presented the story as it appeared. It looked as though a protest formed that was rapidly taken over by heavily armed extremists. Even a week later I'm not sure they had any real evidence to contradict that view...other than circumstantial.

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

Actionable as in specific...time, location etc...

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.

Politics keep it alive. When the leadership responsible in the US Military, CIA, State etc... all say there wasn't a better response option should pretty much put the issue to bed. The "stand down" story has been discredited.

To overturn a call on the field you have to have clear evidence it was wrong...not a conspiracy theory.

Mullen said <snip>

All that's known. The report was extremely critical of the working in the State Department. What's important is if the system is corrected. Some Republicans called it a "whitewash" because it didn't hang Clinton out to dry.

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.

No direct evidence, no.

The 60 Min piece is also walking on thin ice with their accusation that the attack was well planned...the internal findings were just the opposite, that it was planned yet disorganized. They seem to be hinging that remark on the comment that hitting a rooftop with a mortar is like making a basket over your shoulder.

Perhaps Jim can give us some input on how quickly an experienced mortar crew (assuming as they just came off a civil war) could dial in a building from a close range.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I think they presented the story as it appeared. It looked as though a protest formed that was rapidly taken over by heavily armed extremists. Even a week later I'm not sure they had any real evidence to contradict that view...other than circumstantial.

My first reaction to such reasoning is that to say an American citizen exercising his free speech rights, no matter how offensive it may be to others, cannot be a "spontaneous" cause of what happened at Benghazi. If the reaction to a video is to kill, especially those who did not make the video nor who expressed thoughts that were in the video and who expressly were there to help the people of Libya, then the reaction is ideological in nature. To merely label the killers "extremists" tells nothing about them. Extreme in what? In their view of how Islam is to be followed? And if the vast majority of Libyans don't hold the "extremist" views, then how did the "extremists" arrive at those views? Views, BTW, quite similar, even identical, to "extremist" views throughout Islam in much of the world. Did the Benghazi "extremists" just "spontaneously" come up with those views out of the clear blue on their own?

I don't think so. I think there is too much evidence that such extreme views have been disseminated and taught by specific elements in Islam, al Qaeda among them. Whether it was al Qaeda, which was openly operating in Libya, or other "extreme" jihadists, it makes much more sense that these violent "protests" are prodded by and planned by larger jihadist organizations rather than by mindless, emotional, "spontaneous" outbursts.

My second reaction is suspicion that a quick explanation of what happened, in the face what is happening worldwide and what was happening in Libya, is that it was just some crazy outburst due to some crazy and obscure video . . . that such an explanation quickly arrived at and broadcast as the reason for the killing, was a whitewash of the event, not only to cover deeper "systemic" blame, but to mollify the feelings of our Islamic "partners." Constantly hiding the truth, no matter how noble the objective, leads to that wider "systemic" culture which has pervaded our political society--explanation and persuasion by spin.

Actionable as in specific...time, location etc...

How about preventive when various specifics in extended time and locations presage violent events.

Politics keep it alive. When the leadership responsible in the US Military, CIA, State etc... all say there wasn't a better response option should pretty much put the issue to bed. The "stand down" story has been discredited.

When the leadership tries to cover up mistakes or incompetence then it is valuable for politics to keep the issue alive until the truth is known, or it will continue on its corrupt path. The "stand down story" has been deliberately discredited by semantic obfuscation. The phrase "stand down" has a specific military meaning to desist, to stop doing, to do nothing. It has a very direct and immediate command to stop the action of the moment. So the phrase "stand down" may not have been used by military commanders. If civilians loosely use the term to describe a denial of requests for aid or better security, it would be a semantic error, but a true description of events.

To overturn a call on the field you have to have clear evidence it was wrong...not a conspiracy theory.

Those asking for help had clear evidence that it was needed AS LATER PROVED CORRECT. If the evidence was clear to them, and they were correct, what does that say about the competence of those who overturned the call. Great battles have been won not merely on evidence but by hunch or leaders who disregarded bureaucratic procedures who assessed situations with greater competence than those safely ensconced in a far away "system."

All that's known. The report was extremely critical of the working in the State Department. What's important is if the system is corrected. Some Republicans called it a "whitewash" because it didn't hang Clinton out to dry.

They called it a whitewash because they saw it as a whitewash. Blaming a "system" as the fault rather than incompetent leadership is the whitewash. Systems only work with competent personnel and leaders. Dumb will always destroy system.

And Democrats in the investigation called the leadership into question which is even more damaging to Clinton.

The 60 Min piece is also walking on thin ice with their accusation that the attack was well planned...the internal findings were just the opposite, that it was planned yet disorganized. They seem to be hinging that remark on the comment that hitting a rooftop with a mortar is like making a basket over your shoulder.

Ah, the big difference was not that it was spontaneous, but that it was planned "yet disorganized" rather than being "well" planned. So who did the "disorganized" planning (didn't seem all that disorganized, even well executed)?

Perhaps Jim can give us some input on how quickly an experienced mortar crew (assuming as they just came off a civil war) could dial in a building from a close range.

-spence

I think Jim has already made pertinent comments on how Stevens and the others could have been saved.