The Benghazi Incident
 

The facts we know:

*four Americans were killed: 3 CIA (ex-Seal types) were there trying to secure the most dangerous weapons from the militias in Libyia, and our Ambassador to Libyia.

The CIA agents were told to evacuate - run away, from the attack on the Benghazi consulate. These three did not, they ran 1/3rd of a mile to get TO the consulate building that was under attack.

*repeated requests were made for help, as soon as the attack began. No help arrived until 14 hours later. We have a large air base that defended the City of Benghazi, one hour away, at Aviono, Italy. Their motto is "Anytime, Anywhere".

Attachment 41670

They were never asked to help.

*The attack lasted for 6 to 7 hours, with the last 2 hours or so, being monitored by a real time reconnaissance drone, which had no attack capability.

*Five days AFTER the attack, Susan Rice, our UN Ambassador, who knows NOTHING about the Benghazi attack, is repeating on several talk shows, info she's been given by the President: The attack was a demonstration against this video, that turned violent.

Everything she was told, was a lie. It never was understood to be a mere demonstration against a video - we're talking explosives, and mortars, etc. all used in the attack.

This is :( - the President doesn't want to lie, so he has Susan Rice lie for him.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20334452

Now, Obama defends Rice for lying for him, and wants to promote her to Secretary of State, since Clinton is leaving that position.

John McCain, and a few other Senators have said "No!" won't approve Rice's nomination".

Obama says "that's outrageous! Wants to "take them on" in his fiery speech today, defending the lying mouthpiece he used, to deliver his message - Susan Rice.

IMO, Obama is a liar, who abandoned the Americans in our consulate in Benghazi, because he didn't want to admit that it was Al Qaeda affiliates and members, who were making the attack, before the election. That would make him look weak on national defense, to the voters.

Nixon and Clinton both faced impeachment, on FAR less egregious actions than what Obama is apparently guilty of.

IMO, John McCain is a jackass.

He and his equally scummy cohort Sen. John Kyl have been pushing SB2109, a bill that would strip water rights from from the Hopi and Navajo nations. They want to give them away to their corporate mining and and energy friends.

So, I really don't care what McCain's position is on Susan Rice. He and Kyl should be the ones to be impeached.

Wow! McCain's attempt to deprive the Hopi and Navajo people of their water rights is happening right in my own backyard, and I wasn't even aware of it. Thanks for the heads up, Blue!

From Native News Network:

Yet one more example of the Republican's ongoing championship of big money interests to the detriment of everyone else. Peabody Coal has caused incredible ecological damage around here, not to mention the destruction of sites considered sacred by the Navajo and Hopi alike. Now McCain wants to reward Peabody for its misdeeds and add insult to injury to the members of both tribes by handing over tribal water rights with no consideration of the consequences for the people living in this land of little rain. I hope a skinwalker gets him! :mad:

Adak-you're looking like a troll.

And you're looking like a dimwit who doesn't give a damn that Americans were abandoned, killed, and our Ambassador's body (probably dead, but not confirmed), was dragged through the streets (for awhile), by Al Qaeda.

Do you really believe it's nothing? Ho hum, another Ambassador is attacked overseas, and we ignore their plea's for help, so he gets X'd out -- just another day at the ol' White House?

This isn't politics. This isn't just another dumber than dirt policy decision by our glorious leader. :p:

@Water rights for the Hopi and Navajo:
Why not start a thread on it? It's off topic here, but sounds like something people should be made aware of, and follow developments therein.

liar.

I hadn't heard about this until now either. Thanks, bluecuracao! This is outrageous. There was a meeting yesterday in DC on it; apparently the Secretary of the Interior wants to force it through the lame-duck Congress in the next few weeks. Wtf! Without tribal agreement? I think this does deserve its own thread. Not because Adak says so, but because it would get more attention from intelligent Cellarites if not buried here.

So McCain is trashing this Rice after 4 people were killed and she spoke to the press with the info she was given at the time, but he approved Condi Rice after thousands were killed after she KNEW about the threats BEFORE it happened and did nothing. And then supported war against people who had NOTHING to do with it and got thousands MORE killed.

Adak, you are a moron.

But not, apparently, a mormon.

You know, I have lived overseas, in the middle east, and was employed by the US army, on a base. I worked for a year as a communications coordinator. I know how information from situations and other countries on the other side of the world comes in...bits and pieces and dribs and drabs.

There is confusion, conflicting information, missing information and some guesswork involved. As more and more information is received, the picture begins to develop and crystalize. But it isn't complete (or accurate) in an hour, or day, or even a month.

Unlike in the US, you can't just send personnel from point A to B and expect them to get there like an ambulance would do here!. There are unbelievable traffic situations, foreign military checkpoints to get through, tons of bureaucracy and red tape to navigate. Even if I, as a civilian, wanted to go to the grocery store off base, there was red tape. :rolleyes:

And then you have people all along the way who may have made mistakes and are covering ass. So they may fudge and/or leave things out trying to protect themselves and their fellows.

I think it is absolutely absurd to expect the commanders, including the commander-in-chief, to have everything 100% accurate, immediately.

Additionally, Ambassador Stevens was not dragged through the streets by Al Qaeda. He was found in the safe room, nearly dead from smoke inhalation (which he did eventually die from) and rescued. The cheers in that video going around is because he was alive! I'd really refrain from going around calling people dimwits until you get your own facts straight, Adak. :eyebrow:

New York Times

The only thing that matters. The thing that, had it not happened, would have prevented anything Adak could conjure.
THE REPUBLICANS KILLED THE AMBASSADOR AND HIS STAFF.

CASE CLOSED.

Yes, Spexxvet. It really burns my butt when people try to lay the blame on the President for this incident, when the REPUBLICAN'S refused to fund the additional security asked for BY THE PRESIDENT'S Administration.

J.F.C. :mad2:

You're the first person I've heard this from. Cite? Any video?

A mouthpiece for a huge lie, is hardly someone to reward by giving them the Secretary of State position.

I am making no comparison with Condolezza Rice, and not defending Bush, either.

I did not support the invasion of Iraq. Crippling sanctions against him - yes; invasion and rebuilding for 10 years? No.

The Republicans refused to allocate the funds, because the State Department already had millions of dollars in a "slush" fund, that they (Hillary), refused to spend.

But let me ask you:

Does the military have the money to fly in a few fighters and an A-10 or two to support the consulate when it's under attack?

Oh, yes they do! Aren't we the clever one's to have figured that out? :rolleyes:

We flew hundreds of missions out of Aviano Air Base, in support of the rebels - especially around Benghazi and Misrata.

And now what? We can't fly one more mission to save our Ambassador?

WTF?

The recon drone that was relaying video of the attack, may have caught it. The video that was released doesn't show the dragging. As I understand it, it went like this:

The attackers were themselves being attacked by the locals, who did want to support the Ambassador (and some had been hired for that purpose).

The video shows the Ambassador being discovered barely alive, by the local defenders. But later, the terrorists regrouped, and grabbed Stevens (the Ambassador), and began dragging him down the street.
The videographer was driven off, since he was with the local defenders.

The local defenders saw this, and renewed their attack on the terrorists, and drove them off, recovering Stevens body - and took him straightaway to the hospital.

None of the others were dragged, or taken to the hospital, because the mortar shell that landed on the roof they were fighting from, mangled them so badly - it was clear they were dead.

So, the drone video available to public scrutiny doesn't show it. The on-the-ground videographer didn't get video of it. There are no pictures that suggest this actually happened. So, in essence, the dragging of the body is hearsay, not fact. If a credible source confirms the unreleased portion of the video shows him getting dragged, that might change. Has a credible source said anything about it?

That's because the video you watched, was taken by the locals who were trying to defend the Ambassador. They weren't the terrorists who were attacking the consulate!

Those defenders were too little, and too late, to save the Ambassador. They were driven off after Stevens was found alive, by the terrorists. Then he was dragged briefly, before they re-grouped and drove the terrorists away, for the last time, and recovered Stevens. THEN they took him straightaway, to the hospital.

The intel was perfectly clear. Consulate had an "attack" alarm to let the Embassy in Tripoli know they were under attack. That was pressed as soon as the attack started.

Subsequent phone calls and emails were sent both by the Ambassador and by the ex-Seal type CIA agents who were 1/3rd of a mile away, on Consulate grounds, but in another building (the Annex). They could distinctly hear the gunfire, and called it in to their superiors, as well.

The CIA guys were told to evacuate with the Americans that they could get from the Consulate - away to the nearby airport and fly out on a plane that was standing by for them.

This is the article on the revised account given by the CIA on this:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...uick-response/

Did you notice the "he was almost certainly dead" part?

That's because they heard that Stevens body had been dragged before it was recovered and taken to the hospital.

They're not going to say "Oh yeah, Stevens body was bouncing right along the street there, for 1/2 a mile before it could be recovered".

That would not be PC, and would not CTAsses.

This timeline does appear to support a better response, from the Embassy in Tripoli, however. Dohan (killed on the annex roof with Woods), was from Tripoli's response team.


Re: name calling

You get what you give. You want name calling, you'll get it right back.

Re: facts

All the facts are not in. The above statements I made are believed accurate, but the CIA and State Department, and the White House, are all trying to CTAsses on this one - so the real truth is not clear yet.

Senate hearing on this begin next week.

Of course all the facts are not in. All the facts are never in, we never have perfect knowledge, of anything, not even about ourselves or those in our immediate area of observation and understanding. Everybody, even you, like in this instance right now, thinks and acts on the information we each have at the moment. Sometimes, the action of choice is waiting. Sometimes it's something more dynamic. But we are always working with incomplete, imperfect information.

As this stream of information flows to us, we collect more of it. Evaluating the information for consistency, reliability, accuracy, pertinence helps us understand reality, what really happened. You say "the above statements I made are believed accurate"--a somewhat tortured construction "statements are believed accurate"? Meaning, I think, that someone believes them to be accurate. You clearly believe them to be accurate. I'm not persuaded without more background about your sources.

You've clearly disregarded several sources, the statements from the President, the CIA, the Pentagon; you've given your reasons for disbelieving them, fine. What are your sources? What evidence do you have to support your claims?

{Bites tongue}
Promised self to stay out of political threads.

Petraeus testified that he knew. Nothing concrete, but it sure looks bad.

I know what you mean. Can you say "Benghazigate"??

I heard a short clip from the leader of the torches and pitchforks gang, Senator John McCain, in which he said "that is the dumbest question I've ever heard" after being "asked" (setup) by some reporter-person who led him down the garden path ending with thousands of pages of classified material representing a national security risk, in which he said "four dead Americans". He said it about seven times in forty-five seconds. He's wound the hell up by this, by the loss of these four dead Americans.

Good on him.

But he looks and sounds like a bit of a drama queen when he skips the classified briefing yesterday to hold yet another press conference on the issue. How's he gonna get the facts offered there? And what about the four, no, wait, one hundred and four, or more dead Americans in the wake of the storm a couple weeks ago? Why so outraged by some dead Americans and so indifferent to some other dead Americans? Is it because they were attached to our armed services, as he is? Well, then why not grieve and tear his hair about the four dead Americans, Army and Marine veterans killed in a collision with a train? It's because there's no political mud to be slung.

They're all Americans. They're all dead. But he's focused on these because he thinks he can make his political opponent look bad by WHOOPING IT UP. Pathetic hypocrite.

Benghazigate will end up being less important than the White Water fiasco
of Ken Starr, but hopefully will be shorter and cost less Federal $ to complete.

But then, Lindsey and John have little else to do this term,
so they will grandstand each time there's a news camera in the proximity.

So do I understand this? There was a non-public, classified hearing, and we'll never know what happened in it, but now politicians are coming out and saying the testimony clearly supports their position?

That's what the Republican politicians are saying :rolleyes:

This CNN report seems to me to deflate all of the Republican criticism
of White House and Susan Rice regarding her "talking points" last Sept.


CNN
Pam Benson
November 19th, 2012

Official: Changes to Benghazi talking points made by intel community

The Republicans are just looking around for something they can use to appear strong after the painful election results. This seems to have the best odds for them, so they are running with it. It's a non issue, but they are pounding at it, hoping to get some traction.

McCain vehemently demanded that Susan Rice, US Ambassador to the United Nations,
apologize for her public statements from the "unclassified version" of the talking points.
I wonder now if he will apologize ever to her ?

Maybe he will just change direction and demand that Mike Rogers,
Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, apologize for
requesting the "unclassified version" from the CIA in the first place.

Of course Lindsey Graham believes he is never wrong, so he could never apologize... enough.

It's all just such bullshit. If these politicians honestly believe that the military leaders are going to regurgitate every tidbit of information (real, speculative, or classified), they are delusional. Honestly, back the fuck off and quit making this shit political. Get back to fixing the economy and civil issues and let the military experts do their best to keep our servicemen safe.

Oh and if they were so concerned about security, maybe they should have approved the requests for additional funding for extra security before all this happened. But because they denied the requests, they need to just STFU and quit acting like children having a tantrum trying to divert attention from their fuckup. How many goddamn times has this sort of incident occurred? And yet, they're trying to make this one special? Fucking fuck off and go do something useful for a fucking change.

I'm ashamed that these people are in charge and I'm embarrassed that they are representing my country to the world.

C'mon Stormie, tell us how you really feel. :haha:

No they don't. They know it takes time to find out what really happened, if ever. That's why the right wing blogs and pundits were spouting half truths and outright lies before the ashes were cold. Talking like this was a war zone battle scene where everything we got is in place.
Wailing about the Stevens being dragged through the streets, when absolutely no proof exists. I wonder if they pissed on his body... no, wait, that's an American thing.
It's the same as the original 9-11, why didn't they stop the second plane from hitting the WTC?

In cheapshots and soundbyte accusations, they forget to include numbers. Since every consulate at risk requires a company of soldiers, then America does not have enough military. Oh. No wonder they want to spend so much more on military. Realities such as costs have no relevance. After all "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter".

Would it be smarter to not invade nations that were a threat to no one? Unfortunately, when we did that, then extremists (or insurgents) were inspired to attack us. Apparently we want to inspire extremists by maintaining many wars simultaneously every year of every decade. Then assign a company of soldiers to every US consulate. Of course, that means a military draft so that we have enough soldiers to povide protection.

TW: There are a great deal of people/companies that make a ton of money off of our military and our wars. It is in their interests that we be constantly fighting somewhere.

War

Lobbying

With this kind of money in the process, is it any wonder that Washington is corrupt?

Suggestion for next time something bad happens and you can't tell the truth yet because of national security: Use the words, "No comment."

McCain uses "Arm the rebels" for that purpose.

Before I give my $.02, has anyone here besides me served in a politically sensitive, small foot print place like the consolate in Benghazi? My second to last deployment I spent in Peshawar, Pakistan. My last very short deployment was to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, just got back last Saturday. I have an opinion on this whole Benghazi incident based on experience and a little bit of understanding of our agreements and lack there of with other countries.

If I would have had to shoot it out off the roof top of my team house in Pesh, the Cavalry would not have been called. There are serious issues of sovereignty and acts of war involved in sending troops or a fly over with an air strike. I understood going into a place like Pesh that I was at a higher risk, and would be on my own if shit went south. I suspect the guys in Benghazi knew the same. I really don't care bout the national politics, other then using the deaths of these brave men as a spring board for someones political aspirations. I don't like that.

I'm putting this out here because I think we shouldn't lie to ourselves about this. Most Americans don't seem to understand that we just cant send in an Infantry Battalion or a Seal Team when ever and where ever we want, or just maybe send in some fast movers for 3 guys in a building. There are places that it's not going to happen, it doesn't matter who the President is. Be angry about it if you want, but the facts are not going to change about this. I'm not a politician or a General trying to save my job at the expense of public opinion so I can be honest with ya'll. We got away with schwacking Bin Ladin in PK, the price of this you guys will never know, I'm sure it's going to be astronomical. If we had done a similar high profile action in a country like Russia, we might be trading misiles right now. Is it a tragedy? Yes. Regardless of whether it was riots over a video or an organized attack in country could it have gone different? I don't think so.

Thanks Joe, that's pretty much what I suspected.

That made stuff a lot clearer, thanks Joe.

Word, Joe.

Yeah, thank you for putting things in perspective. And thank YOU, Joe, for your service to our country out on the front lines of all this madness. Take care of yourself.

A letter to the editor about sex and military service.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...m_opinions_pop

^Better suited to the "Another one bites the dust" thread.^

right. ny mixup

Reading the author's website, she sounds like a expert. Actually she sounds obsessed about it. Of course being an commissioned officer, she could order privates to do her bidding. ;)

Now after Susan Rice has met with McCain, he is still trying his black balling of Rice "and every other nominee"

Obama now has to stand up to McCain, and nominate Rice for Sec of State
... even if Obama doesn't want her.

Obama had and still has every intention of nominating her. I wonder if that was the price she paid to get the nomination.

What price?

Go on tv, when they ask questions about xyz, rely on this briefing prepared by the intelligence agencies?

Yes, that one. She had the actual reports. She knew beforehand it was incorrect.
I'm not advocating her revealing classified info, but she blatantly knew what she was saying was not true. "We don't know, investigation underway" would have been better than the bullshit about blaming a video clip no one saw.

so you are saying she just sat there and lied? that she saw the reports said x and instead said y? That's not what I suggested. I'm saying she repeated what was in her briefing. You're saying she just made up some shit that was NOT in her briefing? I find that hard to believe.

What do you mean "blaming a video clip that no one saw"?

While the video didn't incite the attack in Libya, it did start protests in Egypt, Yemen, and about 10 other Islamic countries. It is not surprising that the video was initially blamed since it was known to be circulating in Islamic countries a few days before the attack.

Either I am not being clear or you are intentionally twisting what I posted.
I find the latter extremely difficult to believe. Please try rereading my post.

Did it? We have been told that it had. How did all those people suddenly see this video all at virtually the same time? Why did they all riot on THAT same night? How was this "video" spread? Yep, I got my conspiracy hat on.

Note that all interest in those issues & incidents has been dropped. Nothing to see here, move along. :right:
Look, I've got no more info than you or anyone else, but to blame a video that was out for MONTHS prior to all these incidents seems at least a little questionable.

There isn't much information about it but here is a theory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactio...nce_of_Muslims

I do remember hearing about the video before the attacks. I'm guessing it was discovered by these groups a few weeks before 9/11 and thought it would be convenient to spread the video throughout Egypt the week before an already planned protest.

I don't know whether Libya is related at all or it is just coincidence.

Not at all, some things sit on youtube for a long time before going viral. When this video became known in the Islamic world, Aljazeera and other TV, as well as youtube, is available in those countries.

BTW,

Thank you for the whole of your update - it was very illuminating.

But most interesting me was your posting in Peshawar.
Wonderful cuisine in that area.
Peshwari naan is on the menu of most curry houses round here. Now that's not to my taste (too sweet) but I've had some fantastic lamb curries.

Not that I think with my belly or anything.

Your explanation for a team house, is completely different than it is for an embassy or consulate. We have treaties in place for the latter, but not for the former.

In fact, a military response team was sent to Benghazi, but they arrived some 15 hours after the attack began. Since Al Qaeda returned to the attack, one or two of the KIA, was from the response team.

The response was piss poor, everyone knows that. That is very bad, but by far the worst thing was to have the President's spokesperson (Rice), come out and spin her lies to us on no less than FIVE tv talk shows, that weekend.

Lies that she got, according to Obama, straight from him and his staff.

It wasn't the intelligence briefing that had the lie about it being a demonstration over a film - they never thought that was true in Libya. This was an attack from al Qaeda, not a film demonstration. It was confirmed with a recon drone, for god's sake.

If our Commander in Chief thinks he's going to lie to us, with impunity, over a military attack on our state department personnel, involving fatalities, our Commander in Chief, had better think again.

Of course, he lied to the families of those KIA, when Obama met them, as well (at Andrews Air Force Base).

I'm sure he's such a practiced liar that a few shed tears from a grieving widow, did not interrupt his lie, even a little bit.

Looks like Obama has been taking lying lessons from Clinton. At least Clinton's lies were banal, and you had to laugh. I loved his:
"It depends on what your definition of "is", is". -- such a classic! :D

Drones can't read minds yet.

The intelligence briefing removed mention of al Qaeda due to lack of corroboration at the time. When they were confident enough, the briefings reflected that change.

The briefings never indicated the incident in Benghazi was anything but an attack - it never was described as a demonstration over a film, a riot, etc.

And it was the anniversary of 9/11 --- .

Exactly what militia was attacking, wasn't known immediately, but THAT it WAS an attack, was very clear.

Why do you insist on calling it "Rain!", whenever Obama pees down your legs?

I don't get it - if ANY recent president except Obama did this crap, they'd be keel-hauled by the press and media.

But for Obama - it's golf and fun times, hey! :cool:

Fog of war applies.

Why would Obama lie about such a thing? What's the motivation, especially when more details were due to come out? It's been floated that the administration didn't want to admit that the "war on terror" is still a *thing*. But it's a much more likely explanation that someone speculated wrong early, and the explanation lingered awhile before the real details circulated to the top.

look at you and your occam's razor.

Right! Fog of War!

Because we never heard of Al Qaeda in Libya, and we never knew that they might attack us on the anniversary of 9/11.

And we didn't have a recon drone there, watching the whole thing with a high resolution real time camera feed.

Oh, and we didn't receive those alarms and those phone calls, and those emails from the Consulate, saying that they were under ATTACK.

Right -- Fog of War! :rolleyes::rolleyes:

You'd have to be in a coma to believe that, my friend.

Because Obama got a boost from killing Bin Laden - and this Benghazi incident took place just shortly before the election. If he has to admit that it was Al Qaeda that killed our Ambassador, that means he's not the Commander in Chief many thought he was.

If it comes out before the election, that he let our Ambassador and a few other service personnel die, because he wouldn't send in the troops, he loses still more votes. Now he would be broadly seen as a creepy un-American Commander in Chief, who won't support our Embassy personnel, when they are under attack.

For those readers of a younger generation, this is a classic strategy. BTW, that Al Qaeda is using. We used the same one against the Japanese in WWII.

Think of our Embassies like islands in the Pacific. And this time, we're the ones on those islands. It's easy to focus military force against ONE island at a time, and overrun it. The Japanese don't know which island will be hit next - although some are obvious (like Iwo Jima and Okinawa). Same with our Embassies. We don't know which one will be attacked next, and it's easy for Al Qaeda to focus their force against just one Embassy, and overrun it.

It's made that much easier if the "security relief force" only has a dozen or so guys on it, and they take 15 hours to get there - although they're just one hour away, by air.

:lame:

Totally :lame: