As for the locals, I agree: the seven-person team from Tripoli appears to have been held at the Benghazi airport for three hours or more, including during times of active fighting at the consulate. But neither Susan Rice, nor Leon Panetta, nor any other responder in the first seven weeks after the affair has said: “We couldn’t help; the Libyans wouldn’t let us.” And query, too, whether other assets - drones, aircraft, special operators - couldn’t have been inserted in theater without such delays.
Well, the GOP witch hunt to stop Obama’s re-election has now revealed CIA operations, the extent of the CIA’s response capabilities and the names and identities of Libyans working with the CIA. Was there any other information the Republicans wanted to hand over to Al’Qaeda if it means Obama might lose Ohio?
Not sure what point you are trying to make, but (a) no one in this thread has cited FoxNews and (b) it’s been understood for a while that a team of contractors and security agents went from the CIA annex to the consulate one kilometer away shortly after the attack. There are cites all up and down this thread about that.
The question - or at least the issue that I have been addressing - is the absence of any material asset deployment to the theater over the seven hours after that.
Jophiel, I don’t have time to go digging up the cite, but confirmation that the Benghazi “annex” was a CIA outpost came a week or two after the event, when the New York Times reported it. The locals in Benghazi, however, knew it all along - it was the site for US contact with the anti-Qadaffi rebels. The attackers were prepared and dialed in enough to score a direct hit on the rooftop of the CIA annex with their third mortar round in the middle of the night.
The media “clarifications” that are hitting now are each agency trying to exonerate itself from blame.
But aren’t all these reports, just speculation so far. Everyone seems to be citing their so-called “reliable sources”, but no proof of the those events actually happening or occuring the way that its being said it did.
Is the original source of these reports still being traced back to some LSU Tigers fan (with an imaginary in Conspiracy Theories) and that this might be the so-called “reliable sources” that other blogs and news agencies are quoting?
One problem is, bbonden, that FoxNews has been intrumental in pushing (and pushing and pushing) the whole Benghazi story, often using “facts” that are unsubstantiated at best, and complete crap at worst. Many of the other “sources” are simply repeating Fox’s talking points.
It’s obvious to most that the whole thing has clearly been used as a political club to bash Obama with, in order to “get at” a perceived weakness in his strongest area. It’s a typical Rovian tactic.
Sadly, FoxNews simply has no credibility anymore.
At this point, so much bullshit, innuendo and fabricated falsehood has been heaped upon the whole Benghazi story, that any actual screw-up that may have occurred is now buried under this massive stinking pile of crap.
I was referring to much more than the annex/safe house. But I have a feeling that the response here will be the GOP Valerie Plame defense: “Well, we say ‘everyone’ knew it anyway so us talking about it doesn’t count…”
I really don’t think that someone who blows classified info can just fall back on:
“It’s OK because everyone knew. I’m not in trouble because it’s up to you to prove that the classified info that I spilled was not really secret after all.”
That can’t possibly be right. As a faithful viewer of Fox News, I know that those radical Islamists were reacting to Obama’s apology tour, which showed weakness. The only thing they respect is strength, and getting tough with them, let alone killing one of their leaders, would put an end to their violence.
It’s not rocket surgery. It’s exactly the same principle that made the Iraqis greet us with candy and flowers when we invaded them.
reports called all the demonstrations across the middle east over the video “protest.” some involved signs and chants, other involved rocks, fires and looting.
in Benghazi, eye witnesses (as well as the attackers themselves) assert the attack was IN PROTEST of the video. a lawyer on the scene said the militants gathered a crowd “of around 20 youths to start protests over the video. in less than an hour later, it evolved into the attack.”
the people actually involved in the attack said it was “in protest” to the video. one was quoted as saying DURING A PHYSICAL ATTACK that something along the lines of “you aid and protect America in their slander against Muhammad” as they beat a guy.
so, which part is so stupid?
bbonden’s assertion has been that what the obama camp said about “protest relating to the video” is so bogus and unrelated to reality that it was criminal cover-up. he also said that it was, in no way, any sort of “protest.” that it was a pre-planned, coordinated attack. no, it was not. as stated by the attackers themselves, it WAS a protest to the video and WAS spontaneous and a seizing of opportunity. they admit they have no further agenda to wage Jihad over america or anything of that sort. what bboden asserted was it was an attack unrelated.
his assertions are bullshit and have been debunked.
obama cover up? nearly everything they said was true, and to call the attack “not protest, unrelated to the video” is a patent dismissal of reality.
so, really? it’s not protest? really? obama was wrong for that association?
…really?
now–you can’t backpedal on the GOP assertions to fit new evidence. that’s not how it works.
**the assertion was this was a coordinated attack by organized Al-Qaeda members, planned in advance to coincide with the 9/11 anniversary and that it had nothing, at all, to do with the video. the assertion was it was a cover-up, a LIE, and dead-wrong for the obama administration to associate this with the video. THEN it was a nit-pick about calling it a terrorist attack, then ^^^this entire thread of two people clinging to the conspiracy theories. **
the reality is it was NOT a pre-planned attack, it was NOT organized or planned by Al Qaeda to co-inside with anything other than the video protests already going on, it WAS motivated by the video, it WAS a mishmash of militants with loose ties to various terrorist groups–a few (not most, but some) “with ties” to Al Qaeda. this is most likely why romney dropped it.
HE SAID AL QAEDA! THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE JUST LIKE WE SAID!!!
no. it was an opportunistic attack over the video what just so happened to have a few attackers tied to the group. NOT a pre-planned, coordinated assault BY al qaeda.
GOP/FOX/Idiot conspiracy theorist never argued that some loose associating by a few people could be linked to al qaeda. the assertion was this was a motivated, planned attack by al qaeda.
it indeed was not. so pick a bullshit theory and keep that one straight til it’s debunked, stop shifting it (and definitions) to mean what you need to cling to conspiracy.
this thread has been so convoluted, i think it might be prudent to do a full-reset and answer the actual questions.
No, as it has become clear there was no pre-planned attack at all.
the attack was in protest to the video.
no, it has become increasingly apparent the administration was cautious about giving out false/unverified information at first, but as more and more testimony and evidence mounts, it would appear what they said and how they handled it was fairly accurate.
the controversy is because GOP/conspiracists assert this was a pre-planned attack by Al Qaeda organized long in advance to coordinate w 9/11. the controversy claimed Obama “lied” and “covered up” this pre-planned Al Qaeda attack by linking it to protest over the video. the nit-pick over “terrorist” is just insane jockeying to support their theory of cover-up.
to be clear: **the GOP claim was Al Qaeda would have launched this attack even if the video was never made. **
but the reality is, as stated by those involved, is that 1. it was DIRECTLY in protest of the video, that it was a crime of opportunity, that there was no pre-planning, that the anniversary was a coincidence, and that the only involvement of Al Qaeda was that some attackers has loose ties to the group, but have since disavowed any prolonged Jihad against america–they made clear this was a singular event in protest over the video.
so there’s your controversy, there’s your reality.
and furthermore, from **Euphonious Polemic’s ** link, it would also appear bbonden’s assertion “we didn’t help” is as well bogus, as the CIA responded in force w/in 25 minutes.
so there seems to be no conspiracy at all.
note: the talking heads have even started to distance themselves from this issue as it becomes more and more evident it is a non-issue. note: Geraldo is even trying to distance himself from the rest of his network because it’s so clear to him their bullshittery is bullshit.
Stop being disingenuous. The entire concept of a coverup requires the video story to be a lie. You can’t have a coverup if the story we were originally told was true. We were told that the embassy was attacked because of a video.
This is the first time you’ve alleged that it might just be incompetence and not some sort of conspiratorial cover up. You’ve completely backpedaled on it.
Quibbling over the definition of the word “protest” is just as silly as quibbling over the definition of the words “terrorist acts.”
Here is a great NPR story on the attack which clarified several things for me:
The first point is that it’s misleading to say, “the attack lasted for 8 hours and no one bothered to show up.” The consulate was attacked, and the nearby CIA annex sent out a team to rescue the people at the consulate 24 minutes later. This local team fought their way in, recovered most of the people (but not the Ambassador) and fought their way back into the much more secure CIA compound. Everyone thought it was over and it was for several hours.
Then, the well-defended CIA compound began to be attacked late at night. It was never breached but the attackers did manage to land one mortar right on the roof which killed 2 people. The end.
There was a drone, but it was unarmed and the footage was poor. The area was too urban to be able to safely drop bombs from jets. Special Forces were en route, but were deployed too far away to get there in time.
I don’t see a cover-up. It sounds like a well-planned terrorist attack on a lightly defended consulate and a later, half-hearted attack on a well-known and well-fortified CIA base.
The retired General interviewed on NPR who was familiar with the attack seemed to think the only blameworthy thing in the whole episode was the extreme lack of security at the consulate compound. We can debate who is responsible for that, but I doubt any of us really know.
OK, so I take it that the thesis is that an October 10 committee hearing on Benghazi revealed that there was a CIA presence in Benghazi, its size and location, and the identity of individuals whose names were in various emails. I’m one of those “persuadable voter” types, and I’ve got absolutely no desire to protect anyone who sells out American interests. I’m also an avid reader, so I know to be a bit skeptical about Dana Milbank’s byline. I read Milbank all the time, but he’s an inside-the-Beltway opinion writer and political hit man, not a foreign policy, security or intel specialist.
Now, I would assert that anyone who cared to know already knew about the CIA presence in Benghazi - whether it was the locals who watched the CIA support the Arab Spring rebels out of the annex location or those of us who live elsewhere and know what it means when we read about unmarked US buildings and the obituaries of ex-SEAL “security contractors” who work for unnamed “government agencies.”
Still, leaving nothing to chance, the New York Times on September 24, 2012 – more than two weeks before the hearing in question – ran an article titled, “Deadly Attack in Libya Was a Major Blow to CIA Efforts” on page A1. The article helpfully explained that the US presence in Benghazi was mostly spooks:
It explained that the spooks worked out of the annex, a four-building compaound a half mile from the consulate:
And, lest readers of the September 24 cover story were unable to find the right compound (i.e., the one that suffered direct mortar strikes), the NYT helpfully posted a precise map (slide 2):
As for the documents, it truly sucks if the documents contained information that it is against US interests to publish. But that’s the way an open government works. Per the cite, the documents posted were “sensitive but unclassified,” and there is no allegation - even anonymously - that Issa acted contrary to the designation. If documents require treatment in excess of their designation, it is up to the providing department or party (State for some of the documents mentioned, unnamed sources for others) to redact or otherwise explain the sensitivity, as appropriate.
I’m happy to consider other disclosures as inappropriate. But all Dana Milbank managed to show is that he is not a security writer - and that he doesn’t read the New York Times.
So “Everyone knew it so it doesn’t count!” (exactly as I predicted) and “Gee, sucks to be them but oh well”?
Like I said, I’ m sure Al’Qaeda is hiring if the GOP wants a place to give away more information on US security in their witch hunt to stop Obama from being re-elected.