New Libya thread....

[spence]

Too much getting mixed up with the Binders flap.

Recap: We've already established that President Obama referred to the attack as terrorism at least 3 times in the two days after the event. We've also come to agreement that in the week following the White House could have been more consistent in it's remarks that were being based off of incomplete information.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

When Ambassador Rice did the Sunday shows, and Obama was at the UN, everyone in the world knew it was a terrorist attack. But the administration specifically denied that.

I'm assuming that your claim here is based on the ferocity of the attack. Certainly at that point "everyone in the world" let alone yourself didn't have a detailed understanding of available intelligence.

On Sept 16th Ambassador Rice described it was our best understanding that a few people gathered outside in response to regional outrage over the video and a local extremist militia with heavy weapons quickly moved in and started the attack.

Specifically she said:

We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to -- or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo. And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons, weapons that as you know in -- in the wake of the revolution in Libya are -- are quite common and accessible. And it then evolved from there.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/week-...3#.UIKy7s1ygno

This is congruent with initial reporting from the scene as well as sworn testimony given at the House Oversight Committee by the head of Security at the time.

She's clearly indicating this wasn't just some random mob of people...but rather heavily armed extremists.

You've stated "For the next 2 weeks, everything we heard from the administration (be it Obama, Jay Carney, or Ambassador Rice) were specific claims that it was not an act of terror."

Here's the actual transcript from the Sept 20th press conference 7 days after the attack.

Q Jay, a couple things on Libya, a follow. FOX has some intelligence sources saying that al Qaeda was involved in this attack and possibly a former Guantanamo detainee. So I’m wondering if you have a reaction, comment on that. And then second, there was a counterterrorism official on the Hill yesterday calling it a terrorist attack. Any further administration clarification on what you’re classifying the attack?

MR. CARNEY: Well, let me -- hold on one second, let me find this here. I think the sources that you cite I think include the open hearing with the NCTC Director, Mr. Olsen, in which he discussed indications of possible involvement of elements of extremist groups, including possible participation by elements of al Qaeda and particularly al Qaeda in the Maghreb, an al Qaeda affiliate.

It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Our embassy was attacked violently, and the result was four deaths of American officials. So, again, that’s self-evident. I would point you to a couple of things that Mr. Olsen said, which is that at this point it appears that a number of different elements were involved in the attack, including individuals connected to militant groups that are prevalent in Eastern Libya.

He also made clear that at this point, based on the information he has -- and he is briefing the Hill on the most up-to-date intelligence -- we have no information at this point that suggests that this was a significantly preplanned attack, but this was the result of opportunism, taking advantage of and exploiting what was happening as a result of reaction to the video that was found to be offensive.

Q So just to clarify, does the President see that it was an attack on 9/11, a terrorist attack on 9/11? Is that the administration or the President's view?

MR. CARNEY: The attack occurred on September 11, 2012. So we use the same calendar at the White House that you do, and, yes, he sees it. I will simply point you to the testimony of Mr. Olsen, in which he said, based on the information that they have now -- and this is an ongoing investigation -- their judgment is that it was an opportunistic attack in which elements including, possibly, elements of al Qaeda in the Maghreb, participated.

Q I want to go back to something you said, the self-evident part of that. Just help me understand that. It was a self-evident terrorist attack because acts of terror were committed? Or it was self-evident because you've -- because it actually happened on 9/11?

MR. CARNEY: No, no, no. I'm sorry. I meant it was self -- that had this happened on any day of the week in any month, this would have been a terrorist attack. This was an assault on our embassy, a violent attack on our -- I mean, rather our diplomatic facility there that resulted in the deaths of four Americans.

Q So it's the definition --

MR. CARNEY: Correct.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/20/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carney-en-route-miami-fl-9202012

Carney clearly calls the attack a terrorist attack multiple times. The GOP spin appears to be that if it was triggered in a spontaneous manner it can't be terrorism. This is idiotic.

I mean...nobody would have thought this could have had anything to do with the video...right?

REP. RAUL LABRADOR (R-ID): I just have a quick question for Lieutenant Colonel Wood and Mr. Nordstrom. Given the information that you saw on TV and your knowledge of the situation in Libya, did you come to a conclusion as to whether this was a terrorist act or whether it was based on some film that was on the Internet?

[...]

NORDSTROM: The -- the first impression that I had was that it was going to be something similar to one of the brigades that we saw there, specifically the -- the brigade -- and it's been named in the press -- that came to my mind was Ansar al-Sharia.

It was a -- a unit or a group that Lieutenant Colonel Wood's personnel and I had -- had tracked for quite some time, we were concerned about. That specific group had been involved in a similar but obviously much smaller scale incident at the end of June involving the Tunisian consulate in Benghazi where they stormed that facility and it was in protest to what they claimed was an anti-Islamic film in Tunis. [House Oversight Committee hearing on consulate security in Benghazi, 10/11/12, via Nexis]

Jim, if you have evidence of a preplanned al Qaeda attack please call the State Department ASAP. Otherwise the use of "terrorism" by the Administration is exactly the same as your own.

How the death of 4 Americans is being spun for political gain is revolting.

A few days ago the top Dem on the House Oversight Committee released a scathing letter detailing how the House Republicans are misusing their authority to mislead the American people in an attempt to influence the election.

I encourage you to read it in its entirety:

http://democrats.oversight.house.gov...0to%20Issa.pdf

The thing is Jim, there's a lot of good information on the Consulate attack out there. The story that the Administration refused to label this terrorism for two weeks is demonstrably false. The suspicion that the attack was enabled by al Qaeda and pre-meditated is just that...suspicion and not presently supported by the facts. The possibility that outrage over the video could have triggered the attack is supported by on the scene reporting and sworn testimony.

And worse, the release of selective documents and incomplete testimony to undermine the President's authority for partisan gain is reprehensible.

There's always a lot of mud slung during campaigns, but this is particularly bad. My only hope for Romney is that he probably doesn't really have a clue as to what's going on...he's just reading the talking points put in front of him.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Spence, for 2 weeks, Obama (and Jay Carney, and Ambassador Rice) were calling it a spontaneous protest that got ugly. 24 hours after the attack, the intelligence reports sais there was no protest at the embassy prior to the attack.

There was nothing spontaneous about it. People don't just happen to have mortatrs, mortar tubes, and RPGs in their backpacks.

Spence, when Obama spoke at the UN, and when Rice was on teh Sunday talk shows, everyone on the planet knew this was a terror attacks.

My guess...Obama claimed otherwise, because he knows that given the requests for extra security that were rejected, Obama doesn't want to appear as though his administration's mistakes cost 4 suoerb americans their lives.

I don't believe for one second that Ambassador Rice believed what she was saying, nordo I believe for a second Obama believed what he said at the UN or on Letterman. Everyone on this planet knows what took place.

I'm sorry your man-crush shot himself in the d*ck on a foreign policy issue, just before the foreign policy debate. If Obama had come clean immediately, this is a minor story. The only thing keeping this story on the front page, is the fact that Obama/Rice/Carney were saying things that they had to know weren't true.

Spin it any way you want to make Obamna look like a hero. But he blew this as bad as Bush blew the response to Hurricane Katrina. It could well cost him the election, if Romney plays his cards right on Monday.

I think Obama knows that the rejection for extra security very likely cost American lives. His desire to not look like na incompetent buffoon, led him to say things that make him look like a moron.

[Jackbass]

You can go back and dispute timelines of when it was called a terror attack all you want. You are rationalizing why you should support the administration on this issue if it is this much work to come up with a reason to support their stance is it really worth it? The executive branch of our government should be a little more transparent with such things. To say they have been is less than truthful.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Spence, your man-love is so desperately out of ideas, he's saying Romney has "Romnesia" (ha-ha, that's rich). That's about the least dignified thing I've ever heard a President say. A man's true colors are revealed in how he conducts himself in stressful situations...and Obama has chosen name-calling. If that's 'hope and change', you can keep it. I prefer an adult as my commander in chief.

[scottw]

yeah...who exactly is "We('ve)" ?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

People don't just happen to have mortatrs, mortar tubes, and RPGs in their backpacks.

Jim, do you seriously think...for one second...that a heavily armed Islamist militia located in the same town as the American consulate wouldn't likely have already have thought about how to attack the compound or that they couldn't mobilize in a short period of time?

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Jim, if you have evidence of a preplanned al Qaeda attack please call the State Department ASAP. Otherwise the use of "terrorism" by the Administration is exactly the same as your own.

-spence

"Libyan President Mohammed Magarief said the controversial film that mocked Islam's Prophet Muhammad and ignited protests throughout the Muslim world had "nothing to do" with the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, and that he has "no doubt" it was an act of terrorism.

"It's a preplanned act of terrorism directed at American citizens," Magarief told NBC's Ann Curry in an interview that aired Wednesday. "Reaction should have been, if it was genuine, should have been six months earlier. So it was postponed until the 11th of September. They chose this date, 11th of September, to carry a certain message."

Magareif said the "high degree of accuracy" in which the attack was executed—with rocket-propelled grenades and mortar shells—is proof that the assault was preplanned, and not carried out by inexperienced protesters. He said he believes "al-Qaida elements" were involved but stopped short of directly accusing the terrorist group of planning it."


he's probably just making it up strange coincidence that they picked that date too...who would have ever expected anything???

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

"Libyan President Mohammed Magarief said the controversial film that mocked Islam's Prophet Muhammad and ignited protests throughout the Muslim world had "nothing to do" with the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, and that he has "no doubt" it was an act of terrorism.

"It's a preplanned act of terrorism directed at American citizens," Magarief told NBC's Ann Curry in an interview that aired Wednesday. "Reaction should have been, if it was genuine, should have been six months earlier. So it was postponed until the 11th of September. They chose this date, 11th of September, to carry a certain message."

Magareif said the "high degree of accuracy" in which the attack was executed—with rocket-propelled grenades and mortar shells—is proof that the assault was preplanned, and not carried out by inexperienced protesters. He said he believes "al-Qaida elements" were involved but stopped short of directly accusing the terrorist group of planning it."


he's probably just making it up strange coincidence that they picked that date too...who would have ever expected anything???

The US Government has been pretty clear that the attack was not carried out by inexperienced protesters.

If there's evidence of al Qaeda he should bring it forward...but don't forget that the President of Libya has little control of the country right now. There could be benefit to characterizing it as something it may not be, or accusing an enemy of collaboration to provoke a US response.

Hence why the Administration is not going to rush a response...but I'd wager there will be one.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

The US Government has been pretty clear that the attack was not carried out by inexperienced protesters.

If there's evidence of al Qaeda he should bring it forward...but don't forget that the President of Libya has little control of the country right now. There could be benefit to characterizing it as something it may not be, or accusing an enemy of collaboration to provoke a US response.

Hence why the Administration is not going to rush a response...but I'd wager there will be one.

-spence

you should really consider writing fictional novels....you'd be really good at it

[spence]

I think the reason you're struggling is the same reason why Romney botched the Libya question in the debate.

None of you have put the time in to study the available information.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I think the reason you're struggling is the same reason why Romney botched the Libya question in the debate.

None of you have put the time in to study the available information.

-spence

ah yes...#1, #3...and Old Faithful...#4

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

None of you have put the time in to study the available information.

-spence

The same reason you gave for President Obama botching it to begin with .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

...but don't forget that the President of Libya has little control of the country right now.


-spence

Yet they were put in charge as the soul source of protection for a US embassy by this administration .
Your right...pathetic
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

Yet they were put in charge as the soul source of protection for a US embassy by this administration .
Your right...pathetic
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, the primary protection was from US agents and British contractors who had hired a number of Libyans with an intent I believe to shift security to the government. It looks like there was a desire to keep things smaller in scale as they didn't know how long the mission would last.

The testimony from the House investigation has certainly painted a conflicted view of the situation.

Buck, you did say Hillary lied right? I'd be curious to know if you've found anything to back that up yet...or if you're still looking.

-spence

[buckman]

I didn't say Hillary lied,,, I said she was brilliant taking the blame. Nice to see someone man up
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Spence the more that comes out about this the more upsetting it becomes. 4 people were killed and our country did nothing before it happened and while they were being killed and asking for help
But I'll wager that before the election,the administration lobs a few missles declares victory just to gain a few votes
Sad
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

Spence the more that comes out about this the more upsetting it becomes. 4 people were killed and our country did nothing before it happened and while they were being killed and asking for helpPosted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think the information paints a mixed picture. There were certainly requests for help but also there's a lot of contradictory information that the security situation while deteriorating wasn't as bad.

As we've discussed, the security requests that were made wouldn't have likely had any impact on the attack.

Libya isn't Afghanistan.

Pretty much all the violence has been local militias jockeying for position. While the government doesn't have much military authority, the various groups did rapidly come together, form a government and held real elections.

Perhaps more importantly, the people appear to have a pretty favorable view of the United States. Did you forget that a few days after the attack thousands of Libyans protested the attack and took over the Islamist headquarters?

Decrying attack, protesters overtake Islamist group's HQ in Benghazi - CNN.com

The intelligence released continues to support the theory that this was an attack of opportunity, not a carefully planned operation. It's still terrorism and 4 Americans are still dead...but it should be taken for what it is and not what some would like it to be.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I think the information paints a mixed picture. There were certainly requests for help but also there's a lot of contradictory information that the security situation while deteriorating wasn't as bad.

As we've discussed, the security requests that were made wouldn't have likely had any impact on the attack.

Libya isn't Afghanistan.

Pretty much all the violence has been local militias jockeying for position. While the government doesn't have much military authority, the various groups did rapidly come together, form a government and held real elections.

Perhaps more importantly, the people appear to have a pretty favorable view of the United States. Did you forget that a few days after the attack thousands of Libyans protested the attack and took over the Islamist headquarters?

Decrying attack, protesters overtake Islamist group's HQ in Benghazi - CNN.com

The intelligence released continues to support the theory that this was an attack of opportunity, not a carefully planned operation. It's still terrorism and 4 Americans are still dead...but it should be taken for what it is and not what some would like it to be.

-spence

"As we've discussed, the security requests that were made wouldn't have likely had any impact on the attack."

Who discussed this? Everyone who does this for a living, and who works there, thought more security would help. But you, Spence, know better. Got it.

A couple dozen trained security forces could easily, very easily, have turned this into a turkey shoot for the Americans.

But now Spence is an authority on close-quarter infantry tactics.

I'm sure that somewhere on the Huffington Post, Spebce can find an atrticle written by a left wing nut that says that additional security would not have made any difference. Anyone who says that, is lying on behalf of President Obama. We know that 2 teams of 12 or 14 men each were recently removed from that embassy. 24 well-trained Americans, with good defensive cover, could have made an enormous, enormous difference. That's EXACTLY why those who actually know something about these things, requested that extra security.

Stevens would almost certainly be alive today if those teams had remained in place. I'm not saying Obama is personally to blame for removing those teams. But someoone is.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

A couple dozen trained security forces could easily, very easily, have turned this into a turkey shoot for the Americans.

Perhaps, but I don't believe there was ever a request for this. The only I'm aware of was to extend a 16 member security team based in Tripoli. At best this may have added one or two members to the team in Benghazi I'd assume with only light arms.

With your field experience do you think this would have made a substantial difference against a much larger force (estimated at 125 men) with heavier weapons in an unhardened building?

Obama has said it was a screw up, but there's a big difference between a screw up and a cover up.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Perhaps, but I don't believe
The only I'm aware of
I'd assume

Obama has said it was a screw up, but there's a big difference between a screw up and a cover up.

-spence

the State Dept screwed up, the Obama Admin has been covering up for political reasons and you just keep making it up as you go along

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

the State Dept screwed up, the Obama Admin has been covering up for political reasons and you just keep making it up as you go along

Ok, I think you should try 4:1 now.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Ok, I think you should try 4:1 now.

-spence

genius.......Bidenesque

[buckman]

Spence let me tell you what's clear and not "conflicted " by the misinformation provided by the most transparent administration ever
The Red Cross pulled our
The British pulled out
Stevens and others were begging for help even as the 7 hour preplanned organized assault took place
Critical reports went out in real time as it happened to everyone!!! Including the situation room in the Whitehouse
He let Americans die and now he and you are covering it up and excepting 0 responsibility
I'm angry and ashamed this happened
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

Spence let me tell you what's clear and not "conflicted " by the misinformation provided by the most transparent administration ever
The Red Cross pulled our
The British pulled out
Stevens and others were begging for help even as the 7 hour preplanned organized assault took place
Critical reports went out in real time as it happened to everyone!!! Including the situation room in the Whitehouse
He let Americans die and now he and you are covering it up and excepting 0 responsibility
I'm angry and ashamed this happened
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well, there's additional information that's important.

The head of Libyan security testified that there was actually one more diplomatic security agent on site in Benghazi than was requested in July and that the "vast majority" of his resource requests were "considered seriously and fastidiously by (Diplomatic Security) and the department."

What's happened here is that Rep. Issa released only the information from the investigation to hurt Obama and not to paint a full picture.

As for an immediate response, I'm not sure there's a lot they could have done without a military presence nearby which they didn't have. I don't doubt for a second if they thought aircraft from Italy could have saved lives they wouldn't have sent them. There's also the cost tradeoff, putting American military into a foreign country would have meant there was a reasonable option on the table.

You're right in stating that the information went out to everyone which is the protocol in such an emergency. Given we both agree on this, don't you think we'd have already seen some active duty military officials resigning or at least speaking out had there been an easy solution?

-spence

[scottw]

"additional information"= the latest spin

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Well, there's additional information that's important.

The head of Libyan security testified that there was actually one more diplomatic security agent on site in Benghazi than was requested in July and that the "vast majority" of his resource requests were "considered seriously and fastidiously by (Diplomatic Security) and the department."

What's happened here is that Rep. Issa released only the information from the investigation to hurt Obama and not to paint a full picture.

As for an immediate response, I'm not sure there's a lot they could have done without a military presence nearby which they didn't have. I don't doubt for a second if they thought aircraft from Italy could have saved lives they wouldn't have sent them. There's also the cost tradeoff, putting American military into a foreign country would have meant there was a reasonable option on the table.

You're right in stating that the information went out to everyone which is the protocol in such an emergency. Given we both agree on this, don't you think we'd have already seen some active duty military officials resigning or at least speaking out had there been an easy solution?

-spence

So we agree 100% that the Administration knew in real time that this had nothing to do with the movie.
So when we see good solid stand up people, that we seem to be rare in this Administration, resign you will be convinced ?

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

So we agree 100% that the Administration knew in real time that this had nothing to do with the movie.

No, we agree 0%.

I believe the CIA position is that the event was opportunistic and the timing was absolutely triggered by the protests to the movie in Egypt.

So when we see good solid stand up people, that we seem to be rare in this Administration, resign you will be convinced ?

It wouldn't surprise me to see someone in the State Department resign, but that would only validate their mistakes or lack of foresight and not necessarily a failed policy or poor judgement by the Whitehouse.

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

No, we agree 0%.

I believe the CIA position is that the event was opportunistic and the timing was absolutely triggered by the protests to the movie in Egypt.



It wouldn't surprise me to see someone in the State Department resign, but that would only validate their mistakes or lack of foresight and not necessarily a failed policy or poor judgement by the Whitehouse.

-spence

I give up ! 9/11 never forget
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Bronko]

He can't let go of "the movie"... If he does every other part of his argument collapses.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Perhaps, but I don't believe there was ever a request for this. The only I'm aware of was to extend a 16 member security team based in Tripoli. At best this may have added one or two members to the team in Benghazi I'd assume with only light arms.

With your field experience do you think this would have made a substantial difference against a much larger force (estimated at 125 men) with heavier weapons in an unhardened building?

Obama has said it was a screw up, but there's a big difference between a screw up and a cover up.

-spence

Spence, the guy in charge of state department security in the Mideast, said that 2 teams (either 12 or 14 guys each) were removed from the Bengazi embassy, AGAINST HIS WISHES.

24 extra trained Americans, compared to the 2 SEALs who were there?

I'm not into predicting things on a 'what if' basis. But there is an enormous difference between 2 defenders and 26 defenders.