The Benghazi Incident

[Spexxvet]

The only thing that matters. The thing that, had it not happened, would have prevented anything Adak could conjure.

Originally Posted by Adak

The facts we know:

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program — well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012.

THE REPUBLICANS KILLED THE AMBASSADOR AND HIS STAFF.

CASE CLOSED.

[Stormieweather]

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.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Stormieweather

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.

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?

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?

[BigV]

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.

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?

[classicman]

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

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

[Big Sarge]

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

[Lamplighter]

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.

[glatt]

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?

[Lamplighter]

That's what the Republican politicians are saying

[Lamplighter]

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 intelligence community
- not the White House, State Department or Justice Department -
was responsible for the substantive changes made to the talking points
distributed for government officials who spoke publicly about the attack
on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, the spokesman for the director of national intelligence said Monday.

The unclassified talking points on Libya, developed several days after the the deadly attack
on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, were not substantively changed by any agency outside
of the intelligence community, according to the spokesman, Shawn Turner.

Republican criticism of the talking points intensified last Friday following
a closed door hearing with former CIA Director David Petraeus.

Rep. Peter King, R-New York,
told reporters after the hearing that the original talking parts drafted by the CIA
had been changed and it was unclear who was responsible.

"The original talking points were much more specific about al Qaeda involvement
and yet final ones just said indications of extremists," King said.
<snip>
The unclassified talking points were first developed by the CIA at the request of the House Intelligence Committee,
whose members wanted to know what they could say publicly about the Benghazi attack.

The initial version included information linking individuals involved in the attack to al Qaeda,
according to a senior U.S. official familiar with the drafting of the talking points
But when the document was sent to the rest of the intelligence community for review,
there was a decision to change "al Qaeda" to "extremists."
The official said the change was made for legitimate intelligence and legal reasons,
not for political purposes.

"First, the information about individuals linked to al Qaeda was derived
from classified sources," the official said.
"Second, when links were so tenuous - as they still are - it makes sense
to be cautious before pointing fingers so you don't set off a chain of circular
and self-reinforcing assumptions.
Third, it is important to be careful not to prejudice a criminal investigation in its early stages."

Some Republican members of Congress suggested the change came from within the Obama administration
- from the White House, the Justice Department, or another government agency.

Turner, the spokesman for National Intelligence Director James Clapper, said that was not the case.
<snip>
ETA

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-California, told CNN on Monday that
Petraeus explained why the talking points were changed.

"Gen. Petraeus made it clear that that change was made to protect classified sources of information,
not to spin it, not to politicize it and it wasn't done at the direction of the white house.
That really ought to be the end of it, but it isn't.
So we have to continue to go around this merry go round,
but at a certain point when all the facts point in a certain direction,
we're going to have to accept them as they are and move on," Schiff said.

[BigV]

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.

[regular.joe]

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

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

[Sundae]

Originally Posted by regular.joe

My second to last deployment I spent in Peshawar, Pakistan.

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.

[Adak]

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!