Benghazi attacks: more info.

[TheMACHINE]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/cia-operators-were-denied-request-for-help-during-benghazi-attack-sources-say/

wow. freaking horrible.

[101A]

Like a damned Tom Clancy script.

There are two possibilities (and they will be believed an defended in this thread depending on tribal affiliation)

1. This is simply a sensationalist story - no help could have actually reasonably arrived

or

2. This is accurate/or close to accurate - that assistance was denied for whatever political expediency; and that for that reason, Americans died. Then, since then, the administration has been trying to keep this info. from getting out; first by deflecting this as a non-terrorist event, and now, well we see was the "and now" is.

[Nbadan]

Sources said....

:roll eyes

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol Fox News reporting on a politically charged topic

[TeyshaBlue]

:lol Fox News reporting on a politically charged topic

Actually, I read this story in the LA Times, which is not exactly a Red Team stronghold.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Actually, I read this story in the LA Times, which is not exactly a Red Team stronghold.

Ahh that does make a difference. i just saw the url and did not click.

[mercos]

The simplest answers tend to be the correct ones. What seems like the more plausible scenario, that we were caught off guard and some people got killed, or that president decided he didn't give a shit about the people in the consulate and left them to die? One argument wreaks of Trutherism. 9/11 Truthers Part II.

[AFBlue]

I wonder if other media sources would've reached similar conclusions if they dedicated research to the issue instead of focusing on "serious" stories like Obama's new campaign catch-phrases, Senate candidates talking about rape as God's will, Ann Coulter calling Obama a retard, etc.

Don't get me wrong, Fox News covering this story as if it's the only thing going on right now is annoying. But the lack of research and accountability for what happened in Benghazi after four Americans were killed on the anniversary of September 11th is irresponsible.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I still say what i said initially and that was that it sounds like it was a product of the multi-institutional clusterfuck that are our intelligence services. The CIA is now pointing fingers and the Pentagon and vice versa. Before it was the State Department. One thing is becoming clear: the right inofrmation did not get to the right people in time. I have seen where there were operatives in the Mediterranean from all of the agencies and noen of them were sent.

This one I feel is on blue team. Not Obama as Fox News would want to paint it but the behavior of blue team after the WMD debacle. They hammered it to such a degree that the problem in the intelligence community was not fixed but rather exacerbated. The current hammering by red team is going down the same path. We all know the cliche.

It's an institutional problem and needs to be addressed as such.

[AFBlue]

This one I feel is on blue team. Not Obama as Fox News would want to paint it...

It's an institutional problem and needs to be addressed as such.

An institutional problem for which the president bares the ultimate responsibility. And while it's not a responsibility that he's shied away from, I still think it's irresponsible that the American people have been slow-leaked information about just how big of a clusterfuck it was because there's very little attention (relatively) being devoted to the story.

When 9/11 happened we were all in front of the TV getting the most up-to-date information from news and intelligence sources. Obviously this terrorist attack is nowhere near that magnitude, but it's ridiculous that there hasn't been similar attention paid to this story from media outlets across the board.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

An institutional problem for which the president bares the ultimate responsibility. And while it's not a responsibility that he's shied away from, I still think it's irresponsible that the American people have been slow-leaked information about just how big of a clusterfuck it was because there's very little attention (relatively) being devoted to the story.

When 9/11 happened we were all in front of the TV getting the most up-to-date information from news and intelligence sources. Obviously this terrorist attack is nowhere near that magnitude, but it's ridiculous that there hasn't been similar attention paid to this story from media outlets across the board.

Then it's something every president since Ike has been responsible for. You also completely disregard the point about how there are institutional communication issues to put it mildly.

Instead you are just parroting the Fox News narrative. It's boring.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Actually, I read this story in the LA Times, which is not exactly a Red Team stronghold.

I've been doing some research into this and the source is Fox. There are anonymous sources and they spoke with Fox. Others carried it. Now I will not go so far as to say that they are lying. But the converse of this is that a named source ie one Jennifer Youngblood, CIA spokesperson, has stated directly that this is not true.

[Libtard]

If our ultra-conservative congress would actually put proper laws in place to prevent the insulting of Islam and all religions besides Christianity, none of this would have ever happened. It's all because of that stupid video, that guy should be thrown in prison for life for violating those Libyans religious freedom, it's their religious freedom to attack those who commit blasphemy. Blaming this on Obama just makes me sick, it's all that redneck Mitt Romney's fault.

[AFBlue]

Then it's something every president since Ike has been responsible for. You also completely disregard the point about how there are institutional communication issues to put it mildly.

Instead you are just parroting the Fox News narrative. It's boring.

The president himself said the buck stops with him. I'm not parroting Fox News narrative, I'm repeating the sentiment of the commander-in-chief.

[AFBlue]

By the way, I watched Meet The Press and This Week...both shows got a direct mention of Libya by the conservative (Carly Fiorina and Newt Gingrich) that were effectively dismissed by the show moderators. But, of course both had significant segments on Mourdock and reproductive rights.

Not surprising, but definitely disappointing.

[boutons_deux]

"buck stops with him"

Im-a-badass-macho-asshole, goes along with "not on my watch". It's all Hollywood crap.

What military dickless would want the WH micro-managing a tactical, local, not strategic, crisis in Benghazi that was over in a couple hours?

Benghazi is just another example of gotcha, distracting Fox/Repug bad-faith politicking.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

But the lack of research and accountability for what happened in Benghazi after four Americans were killed on the anniversary of September 11th is irresponsible.
I'm sure you felt the same way about the actual 9/11 when a Republican president was caught with his pants down and thousands of Americans died.

One thing I know is, Fox News didn't care very much about research and accountability on actual 9/11.

lol AFBlue
lol service before self

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

My favorite Fox News time period was when George Bush's presidency was rapidly turning into a giant abortion so Fox News decided it was going to focus on the disappearance of Natalie Holloway :lmao

:cry white woman gone missing :cry

[boutons_deux]

My favorite Fox News time period was when George Bush's presidency was rapidly turning into a giant abortion so Fox News decided it was going to focus on the disappearance of Natalie Holloway :lmao

:cry white woman gone missing :cry

white, but blond and pretty.

If Honey Boo Boo's mother went missing in Aruba, it wouldn't make the (Fox) news.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/N_oyZ6rHj9A/0.jpg

http://www.virginiadui.com/mediac/400_0/media/fox050628.jpg

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/OHFTFnS2yq4/0.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_M3tGXnADxLE/R5Z9BqRO9uI/AAAAAAAAAUQ/PzJsBxbqvQ0/s400/natalee+Holloway+copy.jpg

http://img.youtube.com/vi/1OWuxSubhwU/0.jpg

http://www.hyscience.com/archives/beach%20fabric%20Fox.jpg


:cry:cry:cry dumb white slut gone missing :cry:cry:cry

:cry:cry:cry poor Natalee :cry:cry:cry

[AFBlue]

I'm sure you felt the same way about the actual 9/11 when a Republican president was caught with his pants down and thousands of Americans died.

One thing I know is, Fox News didn't care very much about research and accountability on actual 9/11.

lol AFBlue
lol service before self

Yes, I did hold the president and administration responsible for the intelligence failures that led to the 9/11 attack.

lol dude who thinks he knows my thoughts because of an online tag

As for Fox News and their motives, I'm not denying they're biased. I do think though, whatever their motive they're close to the only ones who are giving the story its deserved research and airtime.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Yes, I did hold the president and administration responsible for the intelligence failures that led to the 9/11 attack.
I'm sure you did. I'm also sure that however you held Bush responsible, it didn't stop you from voting for him again in 2004.


lol dude who thinks he knows my thoughts because of an online tag
I know your thoughts because it's obvious how much of a partisan hack you are.


As for Fox News and their motives, I'm not denying they're biased. I do think though, whatever their motive they're close to the only ones who are giving the story its deserved research and airtime.
I'm sure this isn't the first time you've felt Fox News was the only station giving a negative story about a Democratic politician the time it deserves.

[AFBlue]

By the way, credit to Face the Nation for putting McCain on and engaging Rahm Emanuel on Libya.

[AFBlue]

I'm sure you did. I'm also sure that however you held Bush responsible, it didn't stop you from voting for him again in 2004.


I know your thoughts because it's obvious how much of a partisan hack you are.


I'm sure this isn't the first time you've felt Fox News was the only station giving a negative story about a Democratic politician the time it deserves.

I didn't vote in '04. Yet another failure to try to pigeonhole me as a devout Fox News conservative.

And the story doesn't have to be a partisan one based on who is president. I'll go back to one if the original statements I made...on 9/11 and the subsequent weeks that followed, EVERY news source was committed to providing the American people with details on who committed the act, the victims, how it happened, what led up to it, etc. This time it's as if every media outlet except for Fox News is content with the president's response of "we'll get to the bottom of it" and not doing their own research and reporting. It's irresponsible for it not to even get mention on Sunday news shows with so much still left unanswered.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I can't imagine that's because 3,000 people died on 9/11, a terrorist attack IN AMERICA, while 4 people died in the Benghazi attacks that took place IN BENGHAZI.

I also can't imagine it's a lot harder to find out who's responsible for some tiny terrorist attack on the other side of the world compared to a large scale terrorist attack on American soil.

But go ahead and keep comparing the Benghazi attacks to 9/11 since it's what every other partisan hack seems to be doing :tu

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The president himself said the buck stops with him. I'm not parroting Fox News narrative, I'm repeating the sentiment of the commander-in-chief.

Playing Benghazi stuff 24 hours a day and portraying it as a debacle that the president is personally responsible for is the Fox News narrative right now. You obviously watch it. Daily?

Are you ever going to talk about the institutional issues or are you going to do another Fox News hour?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And let's be clear. The other networks have been covering it including carrying this latest from Fox. Go to any major reporting agecy and its still amongst the top stories.

The difference though is that that they are not run by a GOP strategist and as such are just reporting on what the agencies are saying and finding and not trying to play the arbiter of blame.

What do you think the problem was? An intelligence failure? Another one? Wow you sure got a new take on that one.

While it may be fun to paint the president as sitting there getting good intelligence and saying 'fuck it let them die' no one that's not an idiot thinks that. You are not looking for a solution. You are looking for political points and its painfully obvious. The intelligence community is a clusterfuck that several presidents have tried to resolve but lets ignore that lets scapegoat for the election. Its transparent.

[TeyshaBlue]

And let's be clear. The other networks have been covering it including carrying this latest from Fox. Go to any major reporting agecy and its still amongst the top stories.

The difference though is that that they are not run by a GOP strategist and as such are just reporting on what the agencies are saying and finding and not trying to play the arbiter of blame.

What do you think the problem was? An intelligence failure? Another one? Wow you sure got a new take on that one.

While it may be fun to paint the president as sitting there getting good intelligence and saying 'fuck it let them die' no one that's not an idiot thinks that. You are not looking for a solution. You are looking for political points and its painfully obvious. The intelligence community is a clusterfuck that several presidents have tried to resolve but lets ignore that lets scapegoat for the election. Its transparent.

It seems to me to be a structural/institutional problem and, as you pointed out, has been so for previous administrations. The notion of "The Buck Stops Where?" is the knee jerk response to a complex problem like this. But, shallow as it may be, the question is a player.

[Nbadan]

U.S. offers detailed account of attack in Libya (corrected)


The CIA rushed security operatives to an American diplomatic compound in Libya within 25 minutes after it had come under attack and played a more central role in the effort to fend off a night-long siege than has been publicly acknowledged, U.S. intelligence officials said Thursday.

The account, which was provided to news organizations Thursday by senior U.S. intelligence officials, is the most detailed chronology presented so far of an attack that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans, including two CIA security officers.

Correction: An earlier alert should have attributed the account of the raid to U.S. intelligence officials.

Read more at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cia-rushed-to-save-diplomats-as-libya-attack-was-underway/2012/11/01/c93a4f96-246d-11e2-ac85-e669876c6a24_story.html

Izza exposed the then-secret CIA base in Bengazi during his witch-hunt...it's no surprise these guys were at the embassy within 25 minutes of the attack on the embassy..

[Mikesatx]

If you think Fox is the devil then focus on the information and words that came directly from the president. There was mention of terror in the rose garden (debatable in terms of context) but then not mentioned again by the president or Rice. All of the focus was on the video. If you need time to gather information to understand what truly happened why jump to the video? If you believe it was terror and point to your statements in the rose garden acknowleding that fact then what does the video have to do with anything? There are some simple questions that should be answered. As the POTUS were you aware that the consulate was attacked twice in the last 6 months? Were you aware that several requests were made for additional security? If you were why didn't you act? If you weren't aware why not and who is responsibe for getting that information to you?

[Nbadan]

“There were no orders to anybody to stand down in providing support,” said the official. The official’s comments appeared to be a direct rebuttal of a Fox News report that CIA teams on the ground had been told by superior officers to “stand down” from providing security support to the consulate.

The biggest criticism of the issue is whether Obama said the word terrorism, really?

[Nbadan]

Willard receives an intelligence briefing daily. Yet, ever since the 2nd debate, not one word about Benghazi has escaped his lips. Not. One. Instead of Benghazi, Willard has double- and triple-downed on his oft-disproved Jeep lies.

If Faux and Deadbart are foaming at the mouth about Benghazi 24/7, but the candidate is not, what does that tell us?

[Mikesatx]

Sounds like you are reaching. Romney brought it up in debate 2 and was shot down by Crowley and Obama being offended. Crowley came back after the fact and acknowledged that she mispoke. Only problem is the majority of the 65 million people that watched the debate don't know about Crowley's take back. You don't need Fox or any other conservative source. Listen to what the president and his representatives said, that alone should raise questions for you.

[Nbadan]

What questions?

[Mikesatx]

See my previous post in this thread.

[George Gervin's Afro]

If you think Fox is the devil then focus on the information and words that came directly from the president. There was mention of terror in the rose garden (debatable in terms of context) but then not mentioned again by the president or Rice. All of the focus was on the video. If you need time to gather information to understand what truly happened why jump to the video? If you believe it was terror and point to your statements in the rose garden acknowleding that fact then what does the video have to do with anything? There are some simple questions that should be answered. As the POTUS were you aware that the consulate was attacked twice in the last 6 months? Were you aware that several requests were made for additional security? If you were why didn't you act? If you weren't aware why not and who is responsibe for getting that information to you?

what is is it with the red team and this fixation on whether it was called a terror act 5 minutes after it happened? I truly don't understand why the fuck it matters whether it was said right then or 10 days later. It changes nothing. Pardon me for questioning the motives of those (you) who are stuck on the whether Obama yelled terror right after it happened.



There are some simple questions that should be answered. As the POTUS were you aware that the consulate was attacked twice in the last 6 months? Were you aware that several requests were made for additional security? If you were why didn't you act? If you weren't aware why not and who is responsibe for getting that information to you?

Again, none of you guys asked one question when we never found wmds in Iraq. You rememebr the war that we just got out of. I think it is fair to say that the Iraq war caused much more pain to the coutnry and you were silent. Yet now your outraged....

[George Gervin's Afro]

If you think Fox is the devil then focus on the information and words that came directly from the president. There was mention of terror in the rose garden (debatable in terms of context) but then not mentioned again by the president or Rice. All of the focus was on the video. If you need time to gather information to understand what truly happened why jump to the video? If you believe it was terror and point to your statements in the rose garden acknowleding that fact then what does the video have to do with anything? There are some simple questions that should be answered. As the POTUS were you aware that the consulate was attacked twice in the last 6 months? Were you aware that several requests were made for additional security? If you were why didn't you act? If you weren't aware why not and who is responsibe for getting that information to you?


Early U.S. explanation of Libya attack based on intel assessmentBy the CNN Wire Staff

updated 9:07 PM EDT, Fri October 19, 2012

Washington (CNN) -- An Obama administration official whose now controversial comment that the attack on the U.S. mission in Libya was "spontaneous" relied on talking points provided by the CIA based on its assessment that an intelligence official said on Friday was updated days later with new information.The disclosure to CNN appears to offer some clarity around the administration's early stage explanation of the September 11 attack by armed militants that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

But CNN National Security Contributor Fran Townsend injected a new element into the crucial time line on Friday night, reporting on Anderson Cooper 360 that senior intelligence officials had multiple conversations with senior White House officials in the first 24 hours after the attack.

Townsend, a former homeland security and counterterrorism adviser to President George W. Bush, added that "we don't know" what was said.

"But I can tell you from having lived through these crises, you're getting a constant feed of what the intelligence community understands about what is currently going on and what has happened on the ground," Townsend said.
She added that "they will caveat the information" because in the first hours there "will be all sorts of information, some of it which will turn out not to have been true."
Additionally, a senior Republican lawmaker said members of Congress had information from intelligence officials within a day of the incident that it was a military style attack.

President Barack Obama faces harsh criticism from Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney for his administration's handling of security in Benghazi ahead of the attack and its slow-to-evolve, politically sensitive explanation of what occurred.

The issue is expected to be highlighted on Monday when the candidates square off in their third and final debate, which will focus on national security. Romney is trying to undercut Obama's perceived strength with the electorate on foreign affairs in a tightly contested campaign.

Romney has claimed the Obama administration's statements about the attack in the days that followed were confusing at best, and illustrate his contention that the president's foreign policy is incoherent and has made America less respected and more more vulnerable.

Rice comments

Republicans have seized on televised remarks made five days after the attack by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice. In one appearance, she said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that an assessment based on the best information available indicated a spontaneous reaction to demonstrations over an anti-Muslim film produced in the United States.

Several senior administration officials told CNN that Rice's use of the word "spontaneous" came directly from an assessment provided to Congress by the CIA and was not edited by the White House.

"The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations," the document stated.

But the intelligence official said it took days to sort out information around the attack.

"It wasn't until after the points were used in public that people reconciled contradictory information and assessed there probably wasn't a protest around the time of the attack," the official told CNN.

With regard to initial thinking the incident started as a protest - an administration official maintained that intelligence coming from human sources and intercepts all indicated there was a protest on the scene. At the time, there were many demonstrations across the Middle East over the film.

The early talking points outlining the incident as spontaneous were written so members of Congress and senior officials could say something publicly about the attack, the intelligence official said.

"A key question early on was whether extremists took over a crowd or if the guys who showed up were all militants. It took time—until that next week—to sort through varied and sometimes conflicting accounts to understand the group's overall composition," the intelligence official said.

But House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, a Michigan Republican, told CNN that the panel had information from the intelligence community within 24 hours of the incident that it was a military style attack.

"If you look at all of the information leading up to (the attack) from an intelligence perspective, it's really confounding how you can come to a conclusion and then promote it for days in the face of all of that information that this was about a video," Rogers said.

The disclosures on intelligence, however, raises the question of whether those officials are now being blamed for confusion about Benghazi events.

"The intelligence community is not being blamed. Administration officials have made it very clear, the (intelligence community) is providing the best possible assessment it can, another U.S. intelligence official said. "There is no sense anyone is throwing the (intelligence community) under the bus."

Senate committee ups pressure on administration

Separately, a Senate committee has requested documents and a classified briefing from intelligence officials about the Benghazi time line and whether statements by administration officials were inaccurate.

The Senate Intelligence Committee also wants to know about threat assessments and security concerns before the attack. A hearing is planned when lawmakers return to Washington after the election.

Romney suggested at Tuesday's debate in New York that the Obama administration played politics by failing to immediately acknowledge what occurred in Benghazi was a terror attack. Obama bristled, calling that claim "offensive."

When Obama said he described the attack as an act of terror the day after it occurred, Romney challenged him. Obama responded by saying, "check the transcript" of White House remarks on the incident.


Here's an answer for one of your questions.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Sounds like you are reaching. Romney brought it up in debate 2 and was shot down by Crowley and Obama being offended. Crowley came back after the fact and acknowledged that she mispoke. Only problem is the majority of the 65 million people that watched the debate don't know about Crowley's take back. You don't need Fox or any other conservative source. Listen to what the president and his representatives said, that alone should raise questions for you.

or simply something else for the obama haters to bitch about

[boutons_deux]

New Details Discredit Fox News Reports On Benghazi Attacks (http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/11/02/1128831/new-details-discredit-fox-news-benghazi/)The Los Angeles Times’ version of the CIA’s role focuses the most heavily (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-libya-cia-20121102,0,2438659.story) on pushing back on Fox’s spin:



“At every level in the chain of command, from the senior officers in Libya to the most senior officials in Washington, everyone was fully engaged in trying to provide whatever help they could,” a senior intelligence official said in a statement. “There were no orders to anybody to stand down in providing support.”

The Pentagon (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2012/10/pentagon-denies-fox-news-benghazi-report/58489/), White House (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-did-not-deny-requests-help-benghazi-aide-182415488--election.html), and CIA (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2012/10/report-cia-requests-backup-benghazi-were-repeatedly-denied/58419/) had all previously denied refusing requests for support. The New York Times reports (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/world/africa/cia-played-major-defensive-role-in-libya-attack.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0&pagewanted=print) on the Pentagon’s involvement:



[A] senior official also sought to rebut reports that C.I.A. requests for support from the Pentagon that night had gone unheeded.
In fact, the official said, the military diverted a Predator drone from a reconnaissance mission in Darnah, 90 miles away, in time to oversee the mission’s evacuation. The two commandos, based at the embassy in Tripoli, joined the reinforcements. And a military transport plane flew the wounded Americans and Mr. Stevens’s body out of Libya.


Washington Post’s David Ignatius has gone as far as to produce a detailed (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-cias-benghazi-timeline-reveals-errors-but-no-evidence-of-conspiracy/2012/11/01/a84c4024-2471-11e2-9313-3c7f59038d93_story.html) minute-by-minute timeline, of the events that night. These reports together give the clearest picture yet of the events in Benghazi. Rather than the Obama Presidency unraveling as the news organization has claimed, it appears to be Fox News’ narrative that is coming undone instead.

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/11/02/1128831/new-details-discredit-fox-news-benghazi/

Fox Repug Propaganda network trying their damndest to swift-boat Barry out of and Gecko into the WH. Nothing but a bunch of fucking LIARS.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/cia-operators-were-denied-request-for-help-during-benghazi-attack-sources-say/

wow. freaking horrible.

LOL Fox "news" has "sources".

http://www.thenewsherald.com/articles/2012/11/02/news/doc5093be7aadb3e364840332.txt

●9:40 p.m.: A senior State Department security officer at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi called the CIA base, at an annex about a mile away, and requested assistance: “The compound is under attack. People are moving through the gates.” CIA officers at the base can hear the alarm, and a team immediately begins gathering weapons and preparing to leave.

●10:04 p.m.: A seven-person rescue squad from the agency’s Global Response Staff (GRS) leaves in two vehicles. The team leader is a career CIA officer; the team includes a contractor named Tyrone Woods, who later died. During the previous 24-minute interval, the CIA base chief calls the February 17 Brigade, other militias and the Libyan intelligence service seeking vehicles with .50-caliber machine guns. Nobody responds. The team leader and the base chief agree at 10:04 that they can’t wait any longer, and the squad heads for the consulate.

The senior intelligence official said that he doesn’t know whether Woods or any of the other team members agitated to go sooner but added that he wouldn’t be surprised. “I want them to have a sense of urgency,” he said.

●10:10 p.m.: The rescue team reached a chaotic intersection a few blocks from the consulate. Militias gathered there have several .50-caliber machine guns, which the CIA team tries unsuccessfully to commandeer; three militiamen offer to help. The rescue party now includes 10 people: six GRS officers, a CIA translator and the three Libyan volunteers.

●10:20 p.m.: A reconnaissance party of two GRS officers heads to the consulate; at 10:25, three more GRS officers enter the main gate and begin engaging the attackers. The firefight lasts about 15 minutes.

●10:40 p.m.: Members of the CIA team enter the burning inferno of “Villa C,” where Ambassador Christopher Stevens is believed to be hiding. CIA officers try numerous times to reach the “safe room” but are driven back by the intense smoke and fire. Small-arms fire continues from the Libyan attackers.

●11:11 p.m.: An unarmed military Predator drone arrives over the compound to provide aerial reconnaissance. The drone had been diverted from a mission over Darnah, about 90 minutes away. But without weapons, it can’t help much.

●11:15 p.m.: The CIA team puts the State Department group into a vehicle and sends them to the agency base; at 11:30, the CIA officers depart under fire and reach the annex six minutes later.

●11:56 p.m.: CIA officers at the annex are attacked by a rocket-propelled grenade and small arms. Sporadic attacks continue for about another hour. The attacks stop at 1:01 a.m., and some assume the fight is over.

●1:15 a.m.: CIA reinforcements arrive on a 45-minute flight from Tripoli in a plane they’ve hastily chartered. The Tripoli team includes four GRS security officers, a CIA case officer and two U.S. military personnel on loan to the agency. They don’t leave the Benghazi airport until 4:30 a.m. The delay is caused by negotiations with Libyan authorities over permission to leave the airport; obtaining vehicles; and the need to frame a clear mission plan. The first idea is to go to a Benghazi hospital to recover Stevens, who they rightly suspect is already dead. But the hospital is surrounded by the al-Qaeda-linked Ansar al-Sharia militia that mounted the consulate attack.

●5:04 a.m.: The team from Tripoli arrives at the CIA base. Glen Doherty, one of the GRS men from Tripoli, goes to the roof and joins Woods in firing positions.

●5:15 a.m.: A new Libyan assault begins, this time with mortars. Two rounds miss and the next three hit the roof. The rooftop defenders never “laser the mortars,” as has been reported. They don’t know the weapons are in place until the indirect fire begins, nor are they observed by the drone overhead. The defenders have focused their laser sights earlier on several Libyan attackers, as warnings not to fire. At 5:26 the attack is over. Woods and Doherty are dead and two others are wounded.

●6 a.m.: Libyan forces from the military intelligence service finally arrive, now with 50 vehicles. They escort the Americans to the airport. A first group of 18, including two wounded, depart at 7 a.m. A second group of 12, plus the four dead, leave at 10 a.m. for Tripoli and then the long flight back to America.

[boutons_deux]

Fox News Focuses On Benghazi Attack While Largely Ignoring Hurricane Sandy Fox News prime-time hosts barely mentioned Hurricane Sandy on Wednesday night, even as MSNBC and CNN reported non-stop on the massive cleanup efforts just south of Fox's Manhattan studio and throughout the surrounding region devastated by the storm.


Instead, the Fox News hosts focused on the upcoming presidential election and the Sept. 11, 2012, consulate attack in Benghazi, Libya -- a story that’s been a mainstay on the cable network over the past six weeks amid suggestions of a White House cover-up.

None of Fox News' prime-time hosts brought up President Barack Obama's response to the storm, which included touring the battered New Jersey shore with Republican Gov. Chris Christie earlier on Wednesday.

But immediately after Trippi's segment on the election, host Greta Van Susteren teased the next one: "Did the Obama administration deliberately mislead Americans about Libya?" she asked.

etc, etc, etc


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/01/fox-news-benghazi-obama_n_2059933.html?utm_hp_ref=daily-brief?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=110212&utm_medium=email&utm_content=NewsEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief

And right-wing assholes here willingly get suckered by Fox Repug lies OVER AND OVER AND OVER

[CosmicCowboy]

If they had a predator drone overhead why the fuck didn't they take out the mortar that was shelling them?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If they had a predator drone overhead why the fuck didn't they take out the mortar that was shelling them?

It's in the report in the quote that RG just posted ffs.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'll help since CC obviously did not read the report:


5:15 a.m.: A new Libyan assault begins, this time with mortars. Two rounds miss and the next three hit the roof. The rooftop defenders never “laser the mortars,” as has been reported. They don’t know the weapons are in place until the indirect fire begins, nor are they observed by the drone overhead. The defenders have focused their laser sights earlier on several Libyan attackers, as warnings not to fire. At 5:26 the attack is over. Woods and Doherty are dead and two others are wounded.

I also would like to point out that Fox News does not have this report up on ther webite at 9:50 CST but they do have a BIAS report claiming that the other media outlets are not covering this topic. Nor does the Washington Times at 10AM. Both have been having this narrative of tin hats and bias. Direct account of the timeline from the horse's mouth is ignored.

[Drachen]

If they had a predator drone overhead why the fuck didn't they take out the mortar that was shelling them?



●11:11 p.m.: An unarmed military Predator drone arrives over the compound to provide aerial reconnaissance. The drone had been diverted from a mission over Darnah, about 90 minutes away. But without weapons, it can’t help much.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Let's make this clear, there is alot that we can learn form this incident and it should be thoroughy looked at. However, it is painfully obvious that the GOP is trying to politicize this event to try and affect the election. It is also irresponsible to throw everything out on the wall hoping to score political points and exploiting the families of the slain in doing so.

[Mikesatx]

The families would like answers as well. Hugely ironic that you think the right is politicizing this. The misinformation for two weeks after the incident followed with the suggestion that we need to gather all of the information. Gathering all of the information is a great strategy and one that should have been taken from the onset. Where this is political for the president is on his foreign policy narative. Bin Laden is dead and Al Queda is on the run. The POTUS knows he is screwed on the economy and needs to divert to other areas where he appears stronger. With this incident it brings into question his strength in foreign policy.

Your suggestion that we should not ask questions because in your view Bush took us into Iraq on false pretenses is weak. Well your guy screwed up and you looked the other way so now look the other way for the democrat. Instead of looking for news stories that help you defend your guy look and listen to what Obama, Biden, Rice, Carney have all said. If you don't get to a wtf after that then your head is buried in the sand.

[boutons_deux]

"exploiting the families of the slain in doing so"

the father of one the Seals is exploiting his son's death to slander Obama:

"the father of murdered Benghazi SEAL Tyrone Woods, sent this message to Barack Obama:
“It’s better to die a hero than live a coward.” "

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/29/charles-woods-navy-seal-obama_n_2039121.html

[TeyshaBlue]

You know, the father of a slain child should get a pass, you fucking coward.

[ChumpDumper]

The families would like answers as well. Hugely ironic that you think the right is politicizing this. The misinformation for two weeks after the incident followed with the suggestion that we need to gather all of the information. Gathering all of the information is a great strategy and one that should have been taken from the onset. Where this is political for the president is on his foreign policy narative. Bin Laden is dead and Al Queda is on the run. The POTUS knows he is screwed on the economy and needs to divert to other areas where he appears stronger. With this incident it brings into question his strength in foreign policy.

Your suggestion that we should not ask questions because in your view Bush took us into Iraq on false pretenses is weak. Well your guy screwed up and you looked the other way so now look the other way for the democrat. Instead of looking for news stories that help you defend your guy look and listen to what Obama, Biden, Rice, Carney have all said. If you don't get to a wtf after that then your head is buried in the sand.Who said to not ask questions?

Red team didn't ask enough questions in the past and they did so for political reasons. They are asking questions now for political reasons. I guess they can whine about what team blue does, but that doesn't make them look any better.

I still don't know the insinuation they are trying to make here other than a revival of the secret Muslim meme.

After actually reading the report, there is a lot less WTF. It's telling that CC is still ranting after obviously not reading it.

[Mikesatx]

So the right is exploiting the families of the slain? Is it possible that the families of the slain have listened to the words of the POTUS, VP, Rice and Carney and formed their own conclusions? My guess is that if you told the father of the seal that he was exploiting his sons death he would knock you out.

[Mikesatx]

Fox is the only national outlet asking questions. It sounds to me from several of the posts that it is okay to disregard all of this because it has to be political and the right has done the same in the past. Without regard to past issues focus on the issue at hand. If you look at this objectively and logically the end game is either an attempted cover up for political reasons are a failure of either the POTUS or intelligence. Either road is newsworthy. Either rode should be brought to light. Either rode potentially damages the president's re-election hopes that is why he has failed to address this and is still gathering information.

[ChumpDumper]

Fox is the only national outlet asking questions. It sounds to me from several of the posts that it is okay to disregard all of this because it has to be political and the right has done the same in the past. Without regard to past issues focus on the issue at hand. If you look at this objectively and logically the end game is either an attempted cover up for political reasons are a failure of either the POTUS or intelligence. Either road is newsworthy. Either rode should be brought to light. Either rode potentially damages the president's re-election hopes that is why he has failed to address this and is still gathering information.That is a clearly biased view.

[boutons_deux]

You know, the father of a slain child should get a pass, you fucking coward.

You fucking dickless asshole. If the Seal and his father didn't accept the risk of dying, he should have stayed out of the military.

The Seal's father is calling Obama a coward. Obama did not micro-manage Benghazi as it was happening. The Seal's father should go fuck himself.

[ChumpDumper]

Boutons does actually have a point. Team Red used a lot of breath, ink and keystrokes trying to portray Obama as more or less completely detached from the operation to kill OBL. Now they seem to assume that he was personally giving the orders managing an incident at a consulate in a nation at which we are not at war.

I wouldn't expect any POTUS to know shit about this kind of thing until after the fact. Dude's busy.

[clambake]

this is all disturbing. just like mitt interrupting red cross relief efforts......for political gain.

[Mikesatx]

I am basing my opinion on what I have heard from the white house. Their words and actions since the incident occurred. I am biased in that I hope Romney wins the election but I am not pulling for Obama to go down in flames over this. The truth needs to come out and be addressed by the president. The two roads descibed above are how I see it. My guess is that the president knew of the two previous attacks and didn't respond (I'm sure he had his reasons for that decision). I would like to know what those reasons were.

[clambake]

there were 63 dead storm victims before mitt interrupted relief efforts. after that, there is 90 dead storm victims.

i, for one, would like to hear mitt explain that!

[boutons_deux]

I am basing my opinion on what I have heard from the white house. Their words and actions since the incident occurred. I am biased in that I hope Romney wins the election but I am not pulling for Obama to go down in flames over this. The truth needs to come out and be addressed by the president. The two roads descibed above are how I see it. My guess is that the president knew of the two previous attacks and didn't respond (I'm sure he had his reasons for that decision). I would like to know what those reasons were.

The truth, much more complicated than your intellectual capacity, IS out there, and continues to be clarified.

I think Barry should not stoop to answer the swift-boating LIES by you and Fox Repug network.

[ChumpDumper]

I am basing my opinion on what I have heard from the white house. Their words and actions since the incident occurred. I am biased in that I hope Romney wins the election but I am not pulling for Obama to go down in flames over this. The truth needs to come out and be addressed by the president. The two roads descibed above are how I see it. My guess is that the president knew of the two previous attacks and didn't respond (I'm sure he had his reasons for that decision). I would like to know what those reasons were.Yes, you're biased.

It's OK.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Well the next thing you are going to tell me that if an Administration was warned in the weeks before 9/11 that teorrorists were going to use planes and weapons and fly them into buildings.. If that would have happened then I would assume everyone would agree and immediate investigation should take place and want to know why 3,000 people died when the President knew of the warning..right?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Yes, you're biased.

It's OK.

Now you're being biased for claiming he is biased.. even though he has admitted his bias

[Mikesatx]

It's not hard to gage intellectual capacity on this forum. In all sincerity you are the bottom of the barrel. I anxiously await you next post with a link from the Huffington Post or New York Times explaining how you really are an intellectual giant.

[Mikesatx]

An investigation did take place and it was determined that had the various intelligence agencies been better coordinated the act could and should have been prevented. This isn't about putting the death of the 4 men at the feet of the president it is about the words and actions from the white house after the fact. As stated before it leads down to roads that both shine poorly on the president.

[George Gervin's Afro]

It's not hard to gage intellectual capacity on this forum. In all sincerity you are the bottom of the barrel. I anxiously await you next post with a link from the Huffington Post or New York Times explaining how you really are an intellectual giant.

sincerely,

they guy who subscribes to the most biased news organization in America

an intellectual giant!

[ChumpDumper]

It's not hard to gage intellectual capacity on this forum. In all sincerity you are the bottom of the barrel. I anxiously await you next post with a link from the Huffington Post or New York Times explaining how you really are an intellectual giant.lol gage

[Mikesatx]

The only mention of Fox was that they were the only national news outlet covering the story. As stated in more than one post in this thread my opinions have been formed by the words and actions of Obama, Biden, Rice and Carney.

[clambake]

my favorite fox line: "muslim fist bump"!!!!!!

[ChumpDumper]

An investigation did take place and it was determined that had the various intelligence agencies been better coordinated the act could and should have been prevented. This isn't about putting the death of the 4 men at the feet of the president it is about the words and actions from the white house after the fact. As stated before it leads down to roads that both shine poorly on the president.You didn't limit yourself to the president's words and actions after the fact when you entered the thread.

You aren't even honest about what you posted yourself.


The only mention of Fox was that they were the only national news outlet covering the story. As stated in more than one post in this thread my opinions have been formed by the words and actions of Obama, Biden, Rice and Carney.Respectfully, I think you're full of shit when you say that.

[George Gervin's Afro]

The only mention of Fox was that they were the only national news outlet covering the story. As stated in more than one post in this thread my opinions have been formed by the words and actions of Obama, Biden, Rice and Carney.

doesn't that tell you anything? Most non biased people will allow for an investigation to be completed before rendering any opinion... except mikesatx and fox news...

11:04 White House says it a nice day outside

11:06 National Weather Service releases statement that it is raining

11:07 Fox News reports White House lied about Weather report

[ChumpDumper]

my favorite fox line: "muslim fist bump"!!!!!!It's "terrorist fist jab."

[George Gervin's Afro]

It's "terrorist fist jab."

Obama went to a muslim school in kindergarten

[lefty]

Fox News :lmao
Trying to discredit the Obama administration :lmao

[ChumpDumper]

Obama went to a muslim school in kindergartenHe was indoctrinated in a madras!

[clambake]

thats good too!!!!

[clambake]

the birther network

[Mikesatx]

Where do you see mention of anything other than the words and actions of the white house and the details from that day that have been confirmed. You think I'm full of shit because: There isn't enough info from the white house to form an opinion? You don't think I am intelligent enough to put the pieces together? You are convinced that this is a non-story and the republicans are wallowing in the mud to disparage your guy?

[clambake]

are you a cracker for cain?

[Th'Pusher]

The only mention of Fox was that they were the only national news outlet covering the story. As stated in more than one post in this thread my opinions have been formed by the words and actions of Obama, Biden, Rice and Carney.
What do you think about Sean Hannity? You think he's a pretty cool dude? Be fun to split a case of bud with then go pants some queers?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Where do you see mention of anything other than the words and actions of the white house and the details from that day that have been confirmed. You think I'm full of shit because: There isn't enough info from the white house to form an opinion? You don't think I am intelligent enough to put the pieces together? You are convinced that this is a non-story and the republicans are wallowing in the mud to disparage your guy?

hey skippy can we wait until the investigation is over before we state that people lied and or tried to cover anything up?

Or should we rush to judgement in order to try and affect the election?

[Mikesatx]

You seem very biased to me. This isn't that difficult. You can look at the details, words and actions we have from the white house. If you need more info to form an opinion then what else do you need to know? At the end of the day and the end of whatever investigation is being done if there is any wrongdoing by the President or his staff you will come back with Bush took us to Iraq or Bush is responsible for 911. For the die hard Obama supporters I'm sure they will agree with that stance. For those not so devoted it would probably make a difference.

[George Gervin's Afro]

What do you think about Sean Hannity? You think he's a pretty cool dude? Be fun to split a case of bud with then go pants some queers?

Well to be fair to him he does have the most extensive election coverage on radio.. he does the job the msm won't do..

[clambake]

You seem very biased to me. This isn't that difficult. Bush is responsible for 911.

hey, watch out!!!!

[Mikesatx]

What investigating are they doing? The guy that was caught we couldn't get access to. A request was made by Lindsey Graham not the president and now the FBI will interview him. We were told that we couldn't secure the consulate because it was too dangerous yet CNN and Fox were there. I get that you hate the right and that's fine. It doesn't mean you have to defend the left at every turn.

[ChumpDumper]

Where do you see mention of anything other than the words and actions of the white house and the details from that day that have been confirmed. You think I'm full of shit because: There isn't enough info from the white house to form an opinion? You don't think I am intelligent enough to put the pieces together? You are convinced that this is a non-story and the republicans are wallowing in the mud to disparage your guy?You left out the most obvious possibility.

Typical.

You already lied about your questions. It's pretty funny.

[ChumpDumper]

What investigating are they doing?:lol

[TeyshaBlue]

Mike...protip....this is not the time to double down.

[Mikesatx]

Which possibility is that? I screwed up because the information never reached me. I screwed up because while the information reached me I failed to act. Either of those responses are fine. At least he could then lean forward and learn from it.

[boutons_deux]

"the information reached me I failed to act."

Barry could have grabbed his AK47, hopped the Airforces's RamJet1 and got there in just few minutes, to go Rambo AND! Commando on all his co-religionists.

[ChumpDumper]

Which possibility is that? I screwed up because the information never reached me. I screwed up because while the information reached me I failed to act. Either of those responses are fine. At least he could then lean forward and learn from it.Nope, there is an obvious possible reason why you are full of shit that you haven't acknowledged.

[Mikesatx]

Simply sending more security personnel when it was requested or maybe removing the American presence if he fealt he couldn't send additional security forces.

[ChumpDumper]

Simply sending more security personnel when it was requested or maybe removing the American presence if he fealt he couldn't send additional security forces.So now your back to questions before the fact.

Turns out you are full of shit.

[Mikesatx]

I am full of shit because I think Obama is our modern version of the emperor's new clothes and you find him to be the greatest leader of our time? Close your eyes if you want but you have not begun to offer anything remotely resembling an argument. Typical to resort to name calling and insults. With the lack of truth on your side there isn't much you have left.

[Mikesatx]

Your a proponent of gathering information. That information would include what was known before the incident, during the incident and after the incident. The problem for you is that it paints a picture you don't like. Not because it resulted in the death of Americans but because it paints your guy negatively. As I said before hate fox, the tea party, bush, white people, rich people, wall street etc. etc. you can still have your hate. Your lack of any acknowledement that maybe the president might have screwed up a little bit shows how full of shit you are.

[RandomGuy]

If they had a predator drone overhead why the fuck didn't they take out the mortar that was shelling them?

Drone was not armed, as noted. Standard recon, but no weaps.

[ChumpDumper]

I am full of shit because I think Obama is our modern version of the emperor's new clothes and you find him to be the greatest leader of our time? Close your eyes if you want but you have not begun to offer anything remotely resembling an argument. Typical to resort to name calling and insults. With the lack of truth on your side there isn't much you have left.:lol I am under no obligation to form an argument. I've read the report, and it is what it is. I'm content to let the investigations run their courses. It probably won't be to team red's liking -- you and they think this could sink his re-election chances and are holding out that hope like a life preserver. Your great hope is you find some kind of smoking gun showing Obama wanted to kill his own ambassador or something similar by Tuesday.

You came at this completely full of bias then pretended you didn't. You asked questions about Obama's actions before the attack then needlessly lied about doing so in an attempt to make yourself seem less biased. You kicked your own ass and proved yourself to be a liar. You ruined your own credibility trying to bolster it. I find that hilarious.


Your a proponent of gathering information. That information would include what was known before the incident, during the incident and after the incident. The problem for you is that it paints a picture you don't like. Not because it resulted in the death of Americans but because it paints your guy negatively. As I said before hate fox, the tea party, bush, white people, rich people, wall street etc. etc. you can still have your hate. Your lack of any acknowledement that maybe the president might have screwed up a little bit shows how full of shit you are.The problem for you is you are biased and lie for no good reason.

I certainly allow for error on the president's part. You lie about that because you are trying to justify your own lies.

[RandomGuy]

Fox is the only national outlet asking questions. It sounds to me from several of the posts that it is okay to disregard all of this because it has to be political and the right has done the same in the past. Without regard to past issues focus on the issue at hand. If you look at this objectively and logically the end game is either an attempted cover up for political reasons are a failure of either the POTUS or intelligence. Either road is newsworthy. Either rode should be brought to light. Either rode potentially damages the president's re-election hopes that is why he has failed to address this and is still gathering information.

There is the burn.

There is a gulf between asking questions that should be asked, and asking "are you stupid, or just ignorant" just to get someone in some stupid partisan "gotcha".

Quite frankly, if one starts looking at the assumptions underpinning this whole push for an investigation, it becomes a lot more clear.

"cover up" implies something to cover up in the first place. Proving incompetence, and a deliberate attempt to conceal that, are the first legs in that triad, and people without a pre-existing narrative to shoe-horn this into are having a hard time seeing the conspiracy.

It is quite possible in intelligence work, to do everything right, and still miss shit.

If you want to talk about logic, you have set up a false dichotomy and excluded other potential explanations that do not involve cover-ups.

Instead what you have is simply a "begging the question" logical fallacy, in which the conclusions you want to reach are simply assumed to be true, and then you go from there.

Is that the rode you want to go down?

[Mikesatx]

How does looking at Obama's actions before, during or after the attack constitute bias? Their his actions, his words. I assume that when Carney, Rice or Biden speak they are echoing whatever message the POTUS wants out there. The arguments put forth have ranged from well the republicans did the same thing to I am a biased liar. For my own entertainment what do I have to gain by lying?

[RandomGuy]

I am waiting for the "we don't have evidence of a cover-up because they are covering it up" ala 9-11 twoofer nutterism. GMAFB.

[RandomGuy]

How does looking at Obama's actions before, during or after the attack constitute bias? Their his actions, his words. I assume that when Carney, Rice or Biden speak they are echoing whatever message the POTUS wants out there. The arguments put forth have ranged from well the republicans did the same thing to I am a biased liar. For my own entertainment what do I have to gain by lying?

I would not say you are lying. I would ask for a bit more than your word, or that of Fox "news" before jumping on the bandwagon.

Please tell me how you have examined the available evidence and excluded plausible explanations that do not include "coverups".

[ChumpDumper]

How does looking at Obama's actions before, during or after the attack constitute bias?You are now conflating issues.

You lied about what you were questioning. You said you weren't questioning Obama's actions before the attack, but you clearly already had.

I speculated as to why you lied about it. If you have a different reason for lying, tell us. That you lied is not in question.

[RandomGuy]

I've read the report, and it is what it is. I'm content to let the investigations run their courses. It probably won't be to team red's liking ... they think this could sink his re-election chances and are holding out that hope like a life preserver.
I certainly allow for error on the president's part. You lie about that because you are trying to justify your own lies.

Pretty much. If someone with an obvious motive to exaggerate starts asserting some version of events at the the top of their lungs, the logical reaction is to subject those claims to a great deal of scrutiny.

If you think that reaction is not logical, I have a wonderful bundle of mortgages to sell you.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm just asking questions, but the only conclusion that can be drawn is what I already believe.

Classic trooferspeak.

[Mikesatx]

I'm not pushing for cover up. I suggested it looks to be either a cover up or a failure to act. The road to truth would be fine.

[Mikesatx]

Are the actions of the president prior to the attack relevant? If there were two attacks on the conulate 6 months prior to the incident I would say yes. If there were requests by the ambassador for additional military or security support and they weren't addressed I would say yes.

[ChumpDumper]

Are the actions of the president prior to the attack relevant? If there were two attacks on the conulate 6 months prior to the incident I would say yes. If there were requests by the ambassador for additional military or security support and they weren't addressed I would say yes.Sure. That makes your lying about questioning it all the more hilarious.

[RandomGuy]

I'm not pushing for cover up. I suggested it looks to be either a cover up or a failure to act. The road to truth would be fine.

How have you eliminated other possibilities?

It is possible that there was no failure to act, nor a coverup. They told the truth and acted pretty much appropriately.

Libya was not viewed as overly dangerous before the attack, especially in that area. We saved their asses from getting butchered, and the majority of them knew that, and liked the ambassador to boot.

Seems like you are applying 20/20 hindsight.

I'm not saying your conclusions are illogical on their face. I just want a bit more evidence, and better documentation than Fox's anonymous "sources" before really trying to draw a conclusion.

[ChumpDumper]

Look, Obama obviously wanted the ambassador he appointed to die two months before the election.

It's what Muslims do.

I'm still trying to figure out what team red is hoping for here.

[DarrinS]

uFf0dUH3OtU

[Mikesatx]

Here is the info that I have taken to form my opinion:

1) Consulate attacked twice in last 6 months prior to the incident
2) Request for additional security from the ambassador not answered
3) Mention of terror the day after but in questionable context (I'll give the president the benefit of the doubt)
4) Quick jump to the video as the cause, mentioned repeatedly by Obama, Biden, Rice, Carney & Clinton. This narrative continuing for weeks.
5) Evidence that there was actual video of the incident while it was going on
6) Acknowledgement that Drones were overhead that I would assume would also provide video.
7) Word from Libya that this was terrorism and coordinated almost immediately after the fact
8) Detaining of one suspect that has been caught to this point and then not getting access to question him. Access only coming after Lindsy Graham sends request to Tunisia. Shouldn't the president have done that?
9) Not getting to the scene of the attack because it was too dangerous only to learn that CNN not only went into the consulate but picked up the ambassador's journal. Fox was also there.

Which of these points is a lie?

[ChumpDumper]

uFf0dUH3OtUlol heritage.org mail list

[DarrinS]

lol heritage.org mail list

Youtube has search. I'm not on any mailing list

[ChumpDumper]

Youtube has search. I'm not on any mailing listlol searching for conspiracy videos

[George Gervin's Afro]

lol heritage.org mail list

didn't she state that her statement was based on information at hand and that it could change if/when more info came out? Consider the CIA provided talking points for the initia information release. Therfore the Administration followed the CIA's lead? Are we implying the CIA is in on the lie/cover up?

[DMX7]

Sorry, douchebags... It didn't stick. Nobody gives a shit about this so called "scandal".

[Nbadan]

It was a CIA Operation


Just being reported on Huffington Post, several of the SEALS at Benghazi were actually contractors working for the CIA and several news outlets were aware of this. The information was embargoed, presumably to allow the CIA time to clear out any assets and salvage what information it could from the operation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/02/benghazi-media-news-cia-request_n_2066651.html

Short story is THAT is why the administration was less that forthcoming and willing to allow people to think it was just an angry mob. This was apparently a group of militants who know EXACTLY what they were after when the attacked the Consulate

[boutons_deux]

C.I.A. Played Major Role Fighting Militants in Libya Attack

Security officers from the C.I.A. played a pivotal role in combating militants who attacked the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, deploying a rescue party from a secret base in the city, sending reinforcements from Tripoli, and organizing an armed Libyan military convoy to escort the surviving Americans to hastily chartered planes that whisked them out of the country, senior intelligence officials said Thursday.
The account given by the senior officials, who did not want to be identified, provided the most detailed description to date of the C.I.A.'s role in Benghazi, a covert presence that appears to have been much more significant than publicly disclosed.

Within 25 minutes of being alerted to the attack against the diplomatic mission, half a dozen C.I.A. officers raced there from their base about a mile away, enlisting the help of a handful of Libyan militia fighters as they went. Arriving at the mission about 25 minutes after that, the C.I.A. officers joined State Department security agents in a futile search through heavy smoke and enemy fire for Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens before evacuating the mission's personnel to the apparent safety of their base, which American officials have called an annex to the mission. Mr. Stevens was one of four Americans killed in the attack.

A four-hour lull in the fighting beginning shortly after midnight seemed to suggest that the worst was over. An unarmed military drone that the C.I.A. took control of to map possible escape routes relayed reassuring images to Tripoli and Washington. But just before dawn, and soon after a C.I.A.-led team of reinforcements, including two military commandos, arrived from Tripoli, a brief but deadly mortar attack surprised the Americans. Two of the C.I.A. security officers who were defending the base from a rooftop were killed.

"The officers on the ground in Benghazi responded to the situation on the night of 11 and 12 September as quickly and as effectively as possible," one of the senior intelligence officials told reporters.
Thursday's briefing for reporters was intended to refute reports, including one by Fox News last Friday, that the C.I.A.'s chain of command had blocked the officers on the ground from responding to the mission's calls for help.

"There were no orders to anybody to stand down in providing support," the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of continuing investigations by the State Department and the F.B.I.
At a time when the circumstances surrounding the attack on the Benghazi compound have emerged as a major political issue, with Republicans criticizing the Obama administration's handling of the episode, the senior official also sought to rebut reports that C.I.A. requests for support from the Pentagon that night had gone unheeded.

In fact, the official said, the military diverted a Predator drone from a reconnaissance mission in Darnah, 90 miles away, in time to oversee the mission's evacuation. The two commandos, based at the embassy in Tripoli, joined the reinforcements. And a military transport plane flew the wounded Americans and Mr. Stevens's body out of Libya.

Despite the new details, many questions surrounding the attack remain unanswered, including why the State Department did not increase security at the mission amid a stream of diplomatic and intelligence reports that indicated that the security situation in Benghazi and around Libya had deteriorated sharply since the United States reopened its embassy in Tripoli last year.

By underscoring the C.I.A.'s previously unpublicized role in mobilizing the evacuation effort, the officials seemed to be implicitly questioning the State Department's security arrangements in Benghazi, a focus of three Congressional inquiries into the attack on the mission.

The senior officials also shed new light on the C.I.A.'s role in Libya.

Within months of the start of the Libyan revolution in February 2011, the agency began building a meaningful but covert presence in Benghazi, a locus of the rebel efforts to oust the government of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.

The C.I.A.'s surveillance targets in Benghazi and eastern Libya included Ansar al-Shariah, a militia that some have blamed for the attack on the mission, as well as suspected members of Al Qaeda's affiliate in North Africa, known as Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.

American intelligence operatives also helped State Department contractors and Libyan officials in tracking shoulder-fired missiles taken from the former Libyan Army arsenals, American officials said.
The C.I.A.'s security officers played a new role on Sept. 11, carrying out an informal agreement with the mission to come to its aid in an emergency. One of the senior intelligence officials provided an hour-by-hour chronology of the agency's role during the attack.

Around 9:40 p.m. local time, the C.I.A. base received the first of several calls from the mission saying it was under attack. During the 25 minutes between the first call and when the officers rolled out the door, half a
dozen security officers were readying their gear and weapons, while the base chief called several Libyan militias, seeking fighters with heavy weaponry to defend the mission. His appeals failed.

Over the next 25 minutes, C.I.A. officers approached the walled diplomatic compound, tried to secure heavy weapons, and made their way onto the compound itself in the face of enemy fire.

At 11:11 p.m., the Predator drone arrived over the mission compound. Within 20 minutes, all United States personnel, except for Mr. Stevens, whom the American security officers could not find in the chaos, left the mission, coming under fire as they did.

The Americans retreated safely to the C.I.A. annex, where over the next 90 minutes they came under sporadic small-arms fire and rocket-propelled-grenade attacks. The State Department and C.I.A. officers returned fire and the assailants melted away.

About this same time, the reinforcements arrived at the Benghazi airport from Tripoli. Learning that the attacks at the annex had stopped, the team turned its attention to finding Mr. Stevens. But learning that he was at a Benghazi hospital, almost certainly dead, and that the security situation at the hospital was uncertain, the reinforcements headed to the annex.

They arrived shortly after 5 a.m., just before mortar rounds began to hit the annex. That attack, 11 minutes long, killed two men, whom the senior intelligence officials identified for the first time Thursday as C.I.A. security officers, Tyrone S. Woods and Glen A. Doherty, former members of the Navy SEALs. Until now the men had been publicly identified as State Department contract security officers.

Less than an hour later, a convoy of 50 heavily armed trucks from Libyan military intelligence arrived to help evacuate all American personnel from the annex to the Benghazi airport.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/world/africa/cia-played-major-defensive-role-in-libya-attack.xml?f=19

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I have been checking Fox News and the Washington Times websites all day long for them to report the timeline released by the CIA.

They have not reported it.

[Nbadan]

Well, there was this where Geraldo got a case of the 'truthies'


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0l6XxNq_ejQ&feature=player_embedded

[Nbadan]

Republicans Tip world off to covert CIA Role in Libya
Published on November 3rd, 2012
Written by: Juan



The politicization by the Republican Party of the tragic attack on the US consulate in Benghazi has been a security disaster for the United States. A document dump by Congressman Darrell Issa outed the identities of Libyans working with the US.

Now, it has come out that the annex of the Benghazi consulate was a Central Intelligence Agency HQ. Likely the consulate itself was thought safe because of the large numbers of CIA operatives at the annex, some of them with a background in military special forces. They were seen by the consulate staff as “the cavalry.”

Likewise, the reluctance to fortify the consulate may have come from fears that too much security would interfere with intelligence-gathering. State Department officials at the Beirut embassy in Lebanon have complained to me that they are virtually trapped inside the fortified complex, and can’t easily get out and mix with people, which interferes with their ability to build Lebanese contacts or do good political reporting. The CIA staff in Benghazi likely was trying to avoid a similar isolation.

- snip -

It is now clear why the Obama administration has been hampered in replying to the charges of Republican gadflies. They risked outing the CIA operations there. Obama quite admirably decided not to release information on an ongoing covert operation, even though he might, by doing so, have gained some political advantage. Certainly Karl Rove and George W. Bush would not have hesitated to out their own covert operation for political gain.

http://www.juancole.com/2012/11/republicans-tip-world-off-to-covert-cia-role-in-libya.html

[boutons_deux]

The Repugs' "bogus Iraq surge" hero Betraeus is running the CIA. Will the Repugs' fake outrage go after him, too?

Petraeus’s Quieter Style at C.I.A. Leaves Void on Libya Furor


In 14 months as C.I.A. (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/central_intelligence_agency/index.html?inline=nyt-org) director, David H. Petraeus (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/david_h_petraeus/index.html?inline=nyt-per) has shunned the spotlight he once courted as America’s most famous general. His low-profile style has won the loyalty of the White House, easing old tensions with President Obama, and he has overcome some of the skepticism he faced from the agency’s work force, which is always wary of the military brass.

But since an attack killed four Americans seven weeks ago in Benghazi, Libya, his deliberately low profile, and the C.I.A.’s penchant for secrecy, have left a void that has been filled by a news media and Congressional furor over whether it could have been prevented. Rather than acknowledge the C.I.A.’s presence in Benghazi, Mr. Petraeus and other agency officials fought a losing battle to keep it secret, even as the events there became a point of contention in the presidential campaign.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/03/world/africa/petraeuss-lower-profile-at-cia-leaves-void-in-benghazi-furor.html?hp

Repugs' don't who or what they hurt or destroy. It's All (blind, scorched-earth) Politics, All The Time.