News Article: Benghazi attack: CIA reported 'within 24 hours' Islamist militants to blame

[jthomas666]

What's scary is that these decisions may have been purposeful, not simply "bad decisions" or unintended consequences of being "asleep at the wheel".

 

[ValuJet]

...could use "fundamental transformation" as a starting point.

 

[TexasBama]

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/05/benghazi-memo-drafts/65089/

Memo draft timeline......



It is best to follow link and view all the rewrites as it highlights the change of each rewrite. Nothing wrong with having someone make sure the memo is written correctly. But it is clearly being done to cover ones backside on the issue of the lack of security for these people in the embassy with the known threats surrounding them.

The final memo: Libya is a country in Africa.

 

[RammerJammer14]

Re: Top Obama official’s brother, CBS News pres., may drop reporter over Benghazi.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/11/t...eporter-over-benghazi-coverage/#ixzz2T6NX4yF7



Just another example of our mainstream media being an arm of The Democrat Party. With a Republican in The White House, would it be entirely different. You betcha!

On a related note, Fox News has entered contract negotiations with Sharyl Attkisson.

 

[banjeaux]

WaPo: Obama finally gets what he earned: Four Pinocchios

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...b65b83e-bc14-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html

Obama’s claim he called Benghazi an ‘act of terrorism’

The Pinocchio Test
During the campaign, the president could just get away with claiming he said “act of terror,” since he did use those words — though not in the way he often claimed. It seemed like a bit of after-the-fact spin, but those were his actual words — to the surprise of Mitt Romney in the debate.
But the president’s claim that he said “act of terrorism” is taking revisionist history too far, given that he repeatedly refused to commit to that phrase when asked directly by reporters in the weeks after the attack. He appears to have gone out of his way to avoid saying it was a terrorist attack, so he has little standing to make that claim now.

Indeed, the initial unedited talking points did not call it an act of terrorism. Instead of pretending the right words were uttered, it would be far better to acknowledge that he was echoing what the intelligence community believed at the time--and that the administration’s phrasing could have been clearer and more forthright from the start.

Four Pinocchios

We can all agree that the Washington Post is no "right wing" blog, right?

 

[chanson78]

What's scary is that these decisions may have been purposeful, not simply "bad decisions" or unintended consequences of being "asleep at the wheel".

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_16...-have-cartoonish-view-of-military-capability/

Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates forcefully defended the Obama administration on Sunday against charges that it did not do enough to prevent the tragedy in Benghazi, telling CBS' "Face the Nation" that some critics of the administration have a "cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces."

Gates, a Republican who was appointed by then-President George W. Bush in 2006 and agreed to stay through more than two years of President Obama's first term, repeatedly declined to criticize the policymakers who devised a response to the September 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya, that left four Americans dead, including the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens.


"Frankly, had I been in the job at the time, I think my decisions would have been just as theirs were," said Gates, now the chancellor of the College of William and Mary.


"We don't have a ready force standing by in the Middle East, and so getting somebody there in a timely way would have been very difficult, if not impossible." he explained.


Suggestions that we could have flown a fighter jet over the attackers to "scare them with the noise or something," Gates said, ignored the "number of surface to air missiles that have disappeared from [former Libyan leader] Qaddafi's arsenals."


"I would not have approved sending an aircraft, a single aircraft, over Benghazi under those circumstances," he said.


Another suggestion posed by some critics of the administration, to, as Gates said, "send some small number of special forces or other troops in without knowing what the environment is, without knowing what the threat is, without having any intelligence in terms of what is actually going on on the ground, would have been very dangerous."


"It's sort of a cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces," he said. "The one thing that our forces are noted for is planning and preparation before we send people in harm's way, and there just wasn't time to do that."

People need to realize this never has been about the ability of the US military to actually affect the situation while it was going on. It is an issue regarding poor planning and security forces in place, and what the "definition of is is". This is all manufactured outrage over the fact that a government organization changed the wording of a press release. Yes its crazy that the White House felt they needed to leave out the word terrorism from its initial announcement. Sure it seems a little bit silly for them to even do it in the first place. However in the end, a staunch Republican Secretary of Defense has come out and said that the time to do something regarding security was already too late once the attack started. So please quit trying to inflame this whole situation into one where "Obama wants to kill American ambassadors."

 

[cbi1972]

So please quit trying to inflame this whole situation into one where "Obama wants to kill American ambassadors."

The situation is one where "Obama wants to evade responsibility for his egregious failures through outright misrepresentation, and by delaying real inquiry until after the election"

 

[chanson78]

The situation is one where "Obama wants to evade responsibility for his egregious failures through outright misrepresentation but managed to delay real inquiry until after an election"

How? I just don't see it.

The consulate asked for more funds. It goes up the State Department chain, and gets lost. Maybe it gets to Hillary's desk, maybe it doesn't. This is really a moot point because the budget that they had was getting cut because this is also the same time that congress is really getting crazy on the austerity kick.

So explain to me, in a world where every us installation is considered fair game by terrorists, how do you prioritize? What happens when you have a budget that is being cut and you are forced to instead of have a unilateral draw down of security you actually try and guess which ones are in the worst situations and take even more from one location to put in another? Whether it was Benghazi, Somalia, Yemen, wherever, this administration was going to get skewered over an attack.

They just made it worse by being inept and stupid in their response.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_16...-have-cartoonish-view-of-military-capability/



People need to realize this never has been about the ability of the US military to actually affect the situation while it was going on. It is an issue regarding poor planning and security forces in place, and what the "definition of is is". This is all manufactured outrage over the fact that a government organization changed the wording of a press release. Yes its crazy that the White House felt they needed to leave out the word terrorism from its initial announcement. Sure it seems a little bit silly for them to even do it in the first place. However in the end, a staunch Republican Secretary of Defense has come out and said that the time to do something regarding security was already too late once the attack started. So please quit trying to inflame this whole situation into one where "Obama wants to kill American ambassadors."

Let's not leave out they lied about how many times they "changed the wording" as well. I think it begs the question what were they trying to gain from changing the wording so many times? If it wasn't that big of a deal then why change it so many times and why lie about it? Obviously they changed it for a reason. It seems the intent goes beyond "a little bit silly". You don't put that much effort in altering verbiage for no reason.

Secondly, "W" had his turn getting raked over the coals for every misstep he made whether it be a big misstep or a small, insignificant misstep. It seems to come with the territory of being president. Now that the shoe is on the other foot and you've got a democratic president getting called out JUST LIKE "W" was. The liberals are now wanting to change the playground rules. Sorry, not going to happen. "W" stuck his foot in many piles of poo and got crucified for it. Obama isn't any different. Now matter how much of a "savior" many are trying to make him out to be. He's an idiot and is no different than most politicians that now reside in Washington, Democrat or Republican matters not. When I voted for Romney I had to go wash myself afterwards. But if I would have voted for Obama I would have probably thrown myself off a bridge. Voting for the best of the worst isn't fun.

 

[cbi1972]

The situation is one where "Obama wants to evade responsibility for his egregious failures through outright misrepresentation, and by delaying real inquiry until after the election"

How? I just don't see it.

The consulate asked for more funds. It goes up the State Department chain, and gets lost. Maybe it gets to Hillary's desk, maybe it doesn't. This is really a moot point because the budget that they had was getting cut because this is also the same time that congress is really getting crazy on the austerity kick.

So explain to me, in a world where every us installation is considered fair game by terrorists, how do you prioritize? What happens when you have a budget that is being cut and you are forced to instead of have a unilateral draw down of security you actually try and guess which ones are in the worst situations and take even more from one location to put in another? Whether it was Benghazi, Somalia, Yemen, wherever, this administration was going to get skewered over an attack.

I don't know, maybe you don't depose every friendly dictator in the Middle East?

They just made it worse by being inept and stupid in their response.

The whole issue is the administration's willingness to play political games with EVERYTHING. They tried to blame the attack on a movie, because what really happened did not fit their narrative.

 

[chanson78]

I don't know, maybe you don't depose every friendly dictator in the Middle East?


The whole issue is the administration's willingness to play political games with EVERYTHING. They tried to blame the attack on a movie, because what really happened did not fit their narrative.

Honestly, yes. This is 100% true.

I have nothing to add. Great succinct response.

One question though. Is this really worse than Watergate?

As soon as the attempted break-in at Watergate Hotel scandal became know, president Richard Nixon ordered the entire affair covered up. It became clear that the Nixon presidency had been involved in serious manipulation and abuses of power for years. Millions of dollars coming from Nixon supporters were used to pay for the cover-up in an attempt to hide the truth from Congress and the American people.

As soon as the attempted break-in at Watergate Hotel scandal became known, president Richard Nixon ordered the entire affair covered up. It became clear that the Nixon presidency had been involved in serious manipulation and abuses of power for years. Millions of dollars coming from Nixon supporters were used to pay for the cover-up in an attempt to hide the truth from Congress and the American people.

 

[cbi1972]

Honestly, yes. This is 100% true.

I have nothing to add. Great succinct response.

One question though. Is this really worse than Watergate?

I'm just glad his brazen preference for subterfuge is finally being challenged.
As far as the actual impact of his policies, I am at least as concerned about what is being done legally as what is being done illegally.
I care far more about the liberty of the people than about the lives of some diplomats.

 

[JPT4Bama]

Thanks for the laugh!

One question though. Is this really worse than Watergate?

 

[GP for Bama]

Imagine if the George Bush Justice Department had monitored reporters telephone calls. Imagine if the George Bush administration had allowed the IRS to systematically audit and harass various left wing political groups and activists. Imagine if the Bush administration had knowingly covered up info of a terrible foreign incident and knowingly passed false information (for political reasons) to the press. There would be massive protests, massive media coverage, Congressional investigations and widespread calls for impeachment. .....Just saying...

 

[Tidewater]

Chanson, thanks for your thoughts.
It is hardly surprising that an Administration in an election year would massage the press release, even if they knew what they were saying was demonstrably false.
What I would like to know is:
1. Who notified the President that an Ambassador was under attack and when?
2. Where was the President between notification and say, 0800 the next morning?
3. Who, specifically, by duty position and name, directed the limited military assets in the neighborhood (Tripoli and Sicily) not to move?
4. And just for giggles, who will be losing his job over this (besides Ambassador Stevens)?

 

[mikes12]

Imagine if the George Bush Justice Department had monitored reporters telephone calls. Imagine if the George Bush administration had allowed the IRS to systematically audit and harass various left wing political groups and activists. Imagine if the Bush administration had knowingly covered up info of a terrible foreign incident and knowingly passed false information (for political reasons) to the press. There would be massive protests, massive media coverage, Congressional investigations and widespread calls for impeachment. .....Just saying...

Not if he had taken a moment to congratulate a gay athlete. :rolleye2:

 

[lazlohollyfeld]

Chanson, thanks for your thoughts.
It is hardly surprising that an Administration in an election year would massage the press release, even if they knew what they were saying was demonstrably false.
What I would like to know is:
1. Who notified the President that an Ambassador was under attack and when?
2. Where was the President between notification and say, 0800 the next morning?
3. Who, specifically, by duty position and name, directed the limited military assets in the neighborhood (Tripoli and Sicily) not to move?
4. And just for giggles, who will be losing his job over this (besides Ambassador Stevens)?

May I add:

5. Where exactly are the other survivors of the Benghazi attack and why have we not heard from any of them?
6. Why has it taken an event like this for us to learn that the President of ABC News, Ben Sherwood, has a sister, Dr. Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, who is the Special Assistant to the President in the Obama White House?
7. Why has it taken an event like this for us to learn that the President of CBS News, David Rhodes, has a brother, Ben Rhodes, who is the Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communication?
8. Why has it taken an event like this for us to learn that the CNN deputy bureau chief for DC, Virginia Moseley, (part of the job description from her welcome to CNN email " Moseley will manage the network’s D.C. news gathering operation..." is married to Tom Nides, Deputy Secretary of State for Resource and Management?

Three people, ostensibly in charge of their respective news organizations, directly related by birth or marriage to people right in the middle of the Benghazi cluster with one of them (Ben Rhodes) being part of the group that edited the talking points and another (Tom Nides) part of the management chain for State Department facilities. And not to leave the good doctor out of the direct loop, but I doubt she is ignorant of the Benghazi situation.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

May I add:

5. Where exactly are the other survivors of the Benghazi attack and why have we not heard from any of them?
6. Why has it taken an event like this for us to learn that the President of ABC News, Ben Sherwood, has a sister, Dr. Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, who is the Special Assistant to the President in the Obama White House?
7. Why has it taken an event like this for us to learn that the President of CBS News, David Rhodes, has a brother, Ben Rhodes, who is the Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communication?
8. Why has it taken an event like this for us to learn that the CNN deputy bureau chief for DC, Virginia Moseley, (part of the job description from her welcome to CNN email " Moseley will manage the network’s D.C. news gathering operation..." is married to Tom Nides, Deputy Secretary of State for Resource and Management?

Now you're just being plain nosey. :biggrin2:

 

[chanson78]

OK Since you brought it up. BTW this is not me saying "OMG BUSH IS EVIL LET OBAMA GET AWAY WITH IT." This is just trying to bring some reality to the conversation. Everyone is acting as if Obama is the first sitting US president to try and change the context to fit their narrative as well as having departments of the government during their presidential terms do heinous and stupid things.

Again as a caveat, the IRS thing, the wiretapping, and the politicizing of the facts are all pretty egregious, but please try and at least realize that this isn't an "Evil democrats, upstanding Republicans" debate. This is a "Politicians are all slimy jerkfaces" debate.

Imagine if the George Bush Justice Department had monitored reporters telephone calls.

Not necessarily reporters, but legal US residents who were illegally wiretapped. I don't think that just because a reporter is a reporter, that they should have more rights than me to not be wiretapped without a warrant.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/03/bush-spied/

A federal judge on Wednesday said the George W. Bush administration illegally eavesdropped on the telephone conversations of two American lawyers who represented a now-defunct Saudi charity.

Imagine if the George Bush administration had allowed the IRS to systematically audit and harass various left wing political groups and activists.

Not nearly as systematic, yet definitely a targeted investigation for political reasons. Although the NAACP is likely considered a more high profile target than any of the new upstart tea party affiliates were at the time.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/31/AR2006083100737.html

Nearly two years after a controversial decision to investigate the NAACP for criticizing President Bush during the 2004 presidential campaign, the Internal Revenue Service has ruled that the remarks did not violate the group's tax-exempt status.

Imagine if the Bush administration had knowingly covered up info of a terrible foreign incident and knowingly passed false information (for political reasons) to the press. There would be massive protests, massive media coverage, Congressional investigations and widespread calls for impeachment. .....Just saying...

Really? This one is a bit too easy.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/oct/07/usa.iraq1

Iraq had pesticide plants and other chemical facilities which could have been converted to the production of chemical weapons, the ISG found, but there was no clear evidence of such plans.


Meanwhile, Saddam appears to have lost interest altogether in biological weapons. "ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW [biological warfare] programme or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes," the report concluded, adding that "there appears to be a complete absence of discussion or even interest in BW at the presidential level".


Iraq would therefore "have faced great difficulty in re-establishing an effective BW agent production capability".


As far as making a nuclear bomb was concerned, Mr Duelfer said Saddam "was further away in 2003 than he was in 1991. So the nuclear programme was decaying steadily".

Just one more, to remind everyone that documents are revised and changed to fit a story in every presidency.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB254/

• A comparison of the CIA draft white paper with its publicly released edition shows that all the changes made were in the nature of strengthening its charges against Iraq by inserting additional alarming claims, in the manner of an advocacy, or public relations document. The draft and final papers show no evidence of intelligence analysis applied to the information contained. Similar comparison of the British white paper shows the same phenomenon at work.
• Declassified Pentagon documents demonstrate that the CIA white paper was modified in ways that conformed to the desires of the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy and his office, in much the same way that British documents indicate that country’s white paper was changed to conform to the desires of the Blair government.

 

[bamachile]

chanson, life can be lonely on these boards for those who are fans of neither Bush nor Obama.

For the record, I like the latter less than the former. Nevertheless, I supported and/or voted for neither, and the facts you are calling out are largely the reason why.