So the answer is that it was blind partisan bias on your part? Thanks for having the guts to prove it.
Maybe it’s my ideology here, but I find that a reasonable response.
The whole “cover-up” idea is incoherent. It seems to me the timeline went something like:
[ul]
[li]Event in Benghazi. [/li][li]Mitt Romney steps on own dick in attempt to politicize it.[/li][li]Administration thinks it is related to other riots. [/li][li]Administration finds out it was an attack, perhaps unrelated to riots.[/li][li]Republicans pretend outrage at cover-up of nothing.[/li][li]Republicans pretend outrage over lack of additional security, for a completely separate facility.[/li][/ul]
Well, there you go. Geraldo has spoken, people!
For what it’s worth, the CIA says Fox News is full of shit:
http://news.yahoo.com/us-officials-no-delays-rescue-effort-libya-223118242.html
This isn’t hard.
Every relevant portion of the US government (State, DoD, CIA) knew, in real time during the attack, that the attack was a pre-planned assault perpetrated by al-Qaeda affiliates. From the yahoo cite above:
There was never a demonstration; there was never a relevant witness who said it was a demonstration. Yet four days later, after reviewing audio and video, and after talking to survivors - none of whom saw a demonstration, because there wasn’t one - the CIA apparently produces talking points that propose that a demonstration did in fact occur. And another day later, the US ambassador to the UN and presumptive next Secretary of State goes on a five-network media blitz to dish out fiction:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/ambassador-susan-rice-libya-attack-not-premeditated/
Perhaps there is an honest mistake in there somewhere. But until the CIA talking points are explained, the presentation of a fiction instead of the truth is a cover-up.
The other cover-up is how State, DoD, CIA, WH - whomever - failed to deploy meaningful assets to the scene of a seven-hour running battle that was an hour’s flight away from a major naval aviation base. Literally none of the US’s anti-terrorism protocols were invoked:
(Although the “classified presidential directive” does explain a point that befuddled me: why it mattered whether the attack was classified as terrorism. If the description of the directive is accurate, a “possible terrorist attack” leads to the invocation of a mandatory protocol that was not invoked. Hence - possibly - the games over the words used to describe the attack.)
It would be nice to know why Geraldo believes that there were no AC-130s available at Sigonella. There were at least two there in the spring.
At a minimum, though, Sigonella had aircraft and armed predators that could have been put on station in Libya, but apparently were not.
One thing that we are learning, though, is that Hillary is inching closer to becoming the designated fall guy, if the leaks are any indication. From the CBS News cite:
The FBI !?!
Likewise, Leon Panetta is moving from “we didn’t have enough information to put lives at risk” (yesterday’s story) to a new version in which DoD would have gone in, if only State had given the word:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/01/new-details-on-benghazi.html
i linked you to several articles across several sources who all had multiple corroborating eye witness accounts there was, in fact, a protest–either started by the militants to obfuscate the attack OR by the assailants because this attack was prompted by their outrage.
you seem utterly incapable of grasping the concept it just might be true the militants were in fact upset about the film and their motivation grew from that outrage–or they otherwise seized on that opportunity to attack.
you have not provided any counterclaims by eye witnesses on the ground at the time that corroborate there was not any sort of protest to any degree as you claim.
i get the impression you are so investing in this idea that no amount of facts, testimony or first hand accounts of the events will convince you of what might have really happened. you are dogmatically stuck on this idea no one in Libya cared about the video and that somecrazyhow these militant islamist paramilitary are so divorced from emotion and religious zealotry that they didn’t, not even for a second, have any concern, ill will or negative feelings about the video.
you seem to DESPERATELY need your point-of-view to be the case, to the point you dismiss what people who were actually there said they saw in favor of conspiracy theory.
so, i for one and dismissing you as a conspiracy theorist who can’t be bothered with realities that conflict with your ideologies.
have fun with it.
http://theforvm.org/diary/jordan/were-there-protests-benghazi-attack-updated
*According to the New York Times, and unfortunately for ever-hopeful Republican propagandists, the consulate attackers who killed Ambassador Stevens were local militants, not al Qaeda fighters, and they were acting out of anger in response to the video, not carrying out a pre-planned & coordinated attack. This is according to the words of the attackers themselves, to video evidence, and to accounts from local Libyans in Benghazi who know the attackers, know the militias, and know something about their motivations.
To those on the ground, the circumstances of the attack are hardly a mystery. Most of the attackers made no effort to hide their faces or identities, and during the assault some acknowledged to a Libyan journalist working for The New York Times that they belonged to [Ansar al-Shariah]. And their attack drew a crowd, some of whom cheered them on, some of whom just gawked, and some of whom later looted the compound.
The fighters said at the time that they were moved to act because of the video, which had first gained attention across the region after a protest in Egypt that day. The assailants approvingly recalled a 2006 assault by local Islamists that had destroyed an Italian diplomatic mission in Benghazi over a perceived insult to the prophet. In June the group staged a similar attack against the Tunisian Consulate over a different film, according to the Congressional testimony of the American security chief at the time, Eric A. Nordstrom.
At a news conference the day after the ambassador and three other Americans were killed, a spokesman for Ansar al-Shariah praised the attack as the proper response to such an insult to Islam. “We are saluting our people for this zeal in protecting their religion, to grant victory to the prophet,” the spokesman said. “The response has to be firm.”
Other Benghazi militia leaders who know the group say its leaders and ideology are all homegrown. Those leaders, including Ahmed Abu Khattala and Mohammed Ali Zahawi, fought alongside other commanders against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. Their group provides social services and guards a hospital. And they openly proselytize for their brand of puritanical Islam and political vision.
They profess no interest in global fights against the West or distant battles aimed at removing American troops from the Arabian Peninsula.
**As the facts become clearer it is more and more apparent that the Obama administration’s handling of this case has been largely accurate, and appropriately cautious. **It appears that the attack was in response to the video, that it was a relatively spontaneous and improvised attack, and that it was not a coordinated terror strike of the kind associated with global terror groups. The connection with Al Qaeda in the Maghreb appears to be tenuous, and attributing this attack to al Qaeda, the way Republicans have rushed to do, only puts an entirely undeserved notch in that organization’s belt.
Other Benghazi militia leaders who know Ansar al-Shariah say it was capable of carrying out the attack by itself with only a few hours’ planning, and as recently as June one of its leaders, Mr. Zahawi, declared that it could destroy the American Mission.
United States intelligence officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, have said they intercepted boastful phone calls after the fact from attackers at the mission to individuals affiliated with Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. But they have also said that so far they had found no evidence of planning or instigation by the group. James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, described the participation of individuals “linked to groups affiliated with or sympathetic with Al Qaeda” — acknowledging, at best, a tenuous or indirect link.
“It is a promiscuous use of ‘Al Qaeda,’ ” Michael Hanna, a researcher at the Century Foundation, said of those charging that Al Qaeda was behind this attack. “It can mean anything or nothing at all.”
according to guards who were present, part of the conflicting information was due to the fact the protest and attacks were so interwoven, so they describe the start of the protest as the start of the attack. i think the “final word” would be the people who did this, THEIR words, and THEIR words are it was in protest. sooooo.
I haven’t written one word about the video. How do I know what the attackers’ motivations were?
What I do know is that there was no protest, no demonstration – just a company-sized multi-prong coordinated surprise attack, which led to a seven-hour running gunbattle.
Speaking of which, these are your words:
I have provided links showing:
[ul]
[li]“battle waged for some amount of time”: seven+ hours[/li][li]“US was aware of it for any substantial portion”: live audio throughout, live video for five+ hours, call from the Ambassador personally asking for reinforcements[/li][li]“at that point denied reinforcements”: DoD not requested, CSG not convened, FEST not mobilized, hostage rescue team told to stand down, no air assets engaged, seven-person team from Tripoli stuck at Benghazi airport for more than three hours[/ul][/li]
Can we agree that there was, to again use your phrase, “dereliction of duty on a gross scale” somewhere in the US chain of command?
And since we don’t know where that dereliction occurred, isn’t there a cover-up?
Yes, I imagine it’s quite easy for you to spew horseshit without caring if it’s factual or not.
You’re screaming at clouds. The cover-up isn’t.
Classy.
Any time that you want to challenge a fact, or provide a cite, feel free.
With all respect due to “Jordan” and his blog, here is a news-gathering organization reporting nine days after Jordan’s rant:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/24/world/benghazi-al-qaeda-in-iraq/index.html
And as further clarification, everyone agrees that the preponderance of the attackers were from a home-grown (but al-Qaeda affiliated) Libyan militia who did not attempt to hide their identity.
you know their motivation because they have been interviewed.
On Oct. 16, David Kirkpatrick of the New York Times reportedfrom Cairo:
this was corroboratedacross multiple news agencies.
you have pigeon-holed what you need protest to mean and have convoluted it to mean “not violence.” this was a protest. a violent protest, a seized opportunity.
A U.S. intelligence official adds:
so can we agree it was dereliction of duty? no. according to the CBS report, backed up by NRP, NYtimes and a bazillion other reputable sources, by the time they had eyes on the situation, everyone was dead.
the scenario you laid out was they were alive and battling and needed back up. but the reality is they were dead and there was nothing anyone could do by the time a drone caught visuals.
so there’s not a cover-up, there was the GOP’s immediate, insane jump to conclusions–forcefully demanding answers when those involved were delicately trying to suss out what was true, rumor, lies, and bullshit-- a hodgepodge of mixed and conflicting information–propagated by people who had no actual factual information to start with–fueling speculation and disinformation, and a further GOP desperation to conclude this was some kind of giant fuck up. a desperation so prolific you (they) bog down in an absurd mishigas of nuance, nitpicking every single word anyone said, nitpicking definition, nitpicking minutia in a feeble attempt to support foregone conclusions.
I’m not the one trying to score political points by dragging the corpses of our people out and shaking them.
dontbesojumpy is doing a good job, feel free to focus thataway.
again with the grasping at straws. the blog post said “the connection with al qaeda appears to be tenuous.”
your cite corroborates that. it said maybe a dozen of the 40 had “ties” to al qaeda–not were. TIES. and 12 of 40 does not a preponderance make.
so…your point was…what? that he was dead-on? yes. yes he was. thank you for corroborating that.
This is one of the most idiotic assertions I have ever seen on this board, and that’s saying a lot. And John Brown was protesting slavery at Harper’s Ferry, too, I guess.
What point do you think you’re countering, by the way? bbonden’s seems to be that this was a coordinated military attack, not a demonstration that got out of hand. (bbonden, BTW, with facts has done an outstanding job in this thread. Fighting ignorance indeed. The cognitive dissonance this seems to be creating is actually pretty amusing. “There were only 12 of the 40 with ties to al-Qaeda! That’s barely worth mentioning!” 
Lobohan plays the “you’re disrespecting these brave Americans” card, instead of actually countering anything. The reaction is actually instructive. It started out as calm debate, and now it feels desperate. And I don’t mean bbonden.)
I don’t want to debate the definition of “protest,” but bbonden’s larger point seems to be that the attack was NOT a response to the video. Whether you call it an attack or a protest or an act of terror, it’s appears to me that the militia was in fact motivated by the video, which validates much of what the Obama administration said about the attack in the weeks following. Certain people seem to really want this to be an unrelated terrorist attack, coincidentally timed with protests in the region, because that means that the Administration was wrong to tie the attack to the video. But to do so is to ignore testimony from eyewitnesses.
Categorically false.
The first drone was overhead at 11:11 pm on September 11. Glenn Doherty and Tyrone Woods were killed more than six hours later, at 5:15 am on September 12.
Of course, Washington had calls much earlier than the drone got there - including at least one call from the Ambassador - and had real-time audio the entire night.
The sum total of the State/CIA/DoD response to the event was to send a seven-person team from Tripoli at 12:30 pm on September 12 - three hours after the attack started - and to send that team with such urgency that it spent almost four hours at the Benghazi airport after arriving on that side of the country. (This is not a criticism of the team, but the rules of engagement under which they were sent.)
All the while, air assets apparently remained grounded and a hostage-rescue response team was prepped and then told to stand down.
I have never, not once, mentioned the video. I have never, not once, opined on the motivation of the attackers. My “larger point” is that the response to the Benghazi attack was characterized by gross incompetence, or cover-ups, or - most likely - both.
That holds true whether the attackers were motivated by a four-month old youtube video, by the phases of the moon, or by the failure of their mothers to provide a loving home life.
If you want me to speculate on the motivation of the attackers, though, I’d start by querying why al Qaeda in Iraq had members on the ground in Benghazi. And I would ask whether their presence was connected to al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri’s public call, one day earlier, for Libyans to exact revenge for the June drone-strike death of Libyan-born al Qaeda #2 Abu Yahya al-Libi.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/11/us-security-qaeda-idUSBRE88A04L20120911
But that’s just one of those coincidences, I’m sure.
My reading of that timeline leads me to believe that the biggest problem in resolving the situation was due to reliance on local forces. The delay at the airport also seems to be due, in part, to Libyan officials. Although I’m sure it would be grand and wonderful not to have to rely on locals, it also seems like a rather unrealistic proposition. Also, I fail to see where CIA agents were told to stand down. Could you clarify that?