Benghazi / Firestorm of Protest

[PiratePride]

It is incredible to me that neither Pres Obama nor Hillary nor Leon Panetta said ANYTHING...........ANY......THING..... to each other for approximately 7 hours while the battle was raging in the compound at Benghazi. This according to Panetta's and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs testimony today. None of them, Panetta, Clinton or Obama spoke to each other (or their offices) so they say from about 5:30 in the afternoon until the attack was over 7 hours later. ABSOLUTELY ASTONISHING.

The cover up is so obvious .. it is sickening that people still make excuses for Clinton and Obama's actions on 9/11/13. I'm sure though that our esteemed media will pick up on this and there will be a firestorm of protest against the administration to finally give the American people the facts as to what happened. ........NOT

When you consider that 1) there was a carrier task force 300 miles away and 2) there was a rapid deployment force in Italy and 3) it takes a Presidential order to send forces across territorial boundaries....... The Commander in Chief was MIA. He gave no such directive to do all they could to save the ambassador and others involved. Obama lied when he told a reporter that after the attack. He didn't even care enough to check back with Panetta to get a status of what was going on.

This is what I think happened. Obama's political advisors determined that it was a lose - lose situation for Obama to take risky action so close to the election plus it went against their narrative that they were winning the war against terrorists that they advised him to do nothing so he could have clean hands when it was over and they devised the ruse about the Utube video as a cover. It worked, because it wound up being a non-issue for the election ........ but his hands are NOT clean, they are dripping with the blood of those 4 men who died that day and guess what.... he will get away with it and Hillary will get away with it and they will go on lying to the American people.

We are ALL worse off for it..... even those who will go to any lengths to support him.

If you can't tell... I'm disgusted.

This post was edited on 2/7 10:09 PM by PiratePride

This post was edited on 2/7 10:11 PM by PiratePride

 

[shu09]

First of all, the attack lasted approximately 4 hours, not 7. Clinton was coordinating with Petraeus at CIA.

What exactly are they covering up? What could the President of the United States do about a sudden situation in Libya to stop something in time to prevent loss of life? The Ambassador and 3 others were dead before anyone in Washington could do anything that might have saved them.

Unfortunate things happen. Not everything is a conspiracy. People are using the deaths of four citizens to score political points against the president, just like Democrats did to Bush. That is what is sickening.
This post was edited on 2/7 10:44 PM by shu09

 

[PiratePride]

Panetta & Gen Dempsey would disagree with you. Panetta pointedly stated that he had no problem wit the timeline that was on a chart in the hearing room. In part the facts are that Panetta informed the Pres about 5:20 ETor so that there was an attack going on. There actually wound up being two attacks one on the compound and one on the annex where the Ambassador ultimately met his demise. The attack on the annex began around midnight ET and ended about 1:00 AM ET. So there were actually more than 7 hours that elapsed from the time that Panetta informed the Pres and when it all ended about 1:00 AM ET.

What are they covering up????? That is what we should all want to know. You don't find it troubling that the official word out of the WH was that this was all a result of that video? And despite Obama's protestations to the contrary, they floated that account for weeks after the event. We all know the story of UN Ambassador Rice.You don't think that was politically motivated with a general election just weeks away? If there are any conspiracy theories floating around, they were spawned by the curious actions of the White House, the State Department and DOD.

I am saddened by the fact that only the Republican Senators asked the probing questions yesterday. I saw a headline where it stated that Republicans are SHOCKED by the responses of Panetta & Dempsey. They all should have been shocked. I didn't listen to every senator, but the Democrats that I did listen to only addressed sequestration which was brought up by Panetta in his remarks... which in the context of the hearing was a total straw man put up to divert attention and give Dem Senators some talking points to address.

 

[Section112]

The partisanship is completely ridiculous and this is a great example. No Dems are questioning this?? Common - are we all that stupid? And do no Democrats care about the Americans were KILLED in this incident? Why aren't they upset as well and why aren't they pushing for answers even after they have what they wanted and that is the Presidency?

We also had other military options at the ready and noone had the balls to send them in. This was a screw-up from top to bottom in so many ways and its all been brushed under the rug for partisan reasons.

Hillary should be ashamed at how her department handled this. And we as Americans should be ashamed by our Congress and Senate again (both parties) as they simply get in the party line again. They all suck and are taking us on their ride...

 

[HALL85]

Originally posted by Section112:

The partisanship is completely ridiculous and this is a great example. No Dems are questioning this?? Common - are we all that stupid? And do no Democrats care about the Americans were KILLED in this incident? Why aren't they upset as well and why aren't they pushing for answers even after they have what they wanted and that is the Presidency?

We also had other military options at the ready and noone had the balls to send them in. This was a screw-up from top to bottom in so many ways and its all been brushed under the rug for partisan reasons.

Hillary should be ashamed at how her department handled this. And we as Americans should be ashamed by our Congress and Senate again (both parties) as they simply get in the party line again. They all suck and are taking us on their ride...

Excellent post. Partisanship and the ignorance of the electorate are killing this country and the media is at the front of the ignorance line. BO and Hillary have blood on their hands, no question.

This post was edited on 2/8 12:25 PM by HALL85

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by shu09:

First of all, the attack lasted approximately 4 hours, not 7. Clinton was coordinating with Petraeus at CIA.

What exactly are they covering up? What could the President of the United States do about a sudden situation in Libya to stop something in time to prevent loss of life? The Ambassador and 3 others were dead before anyone in Washington could do anything that might have saved them.

Unfortunate things happen. Not everything is a conspiracy. People are using the deaths of four citizens to score political points against the president, just like Democrats did to Bush. That is what is sickening.
This post was edited on 2/7 10:44 PM by shu09

People always want the conspiracy to be true when it is against the "other side".

Getting upset that the attack was tied to the anti-Muslim video is also absurd. This happened hours after a protest broke out in Egypt. Is it really that much of a stretch to think that they chose to attack after the protests were spreading because they were trying to grow the anti-American sentiment into violence?

If you are a reasonable person looking at the timeline of events that occurred, you can walk away from it and say to yourself that it was a horrible series of events but there is not much we could have done differently that would have changed the outcome. It is not like this was an ongoing event. There was an attack, then a lull and then another attack.

I wonder if these same people who criticize Obama's actions were also upset with Bush's actions the moment he found out America had been attacked and thousands of people had just been killed...


9:42 p.m.[/B] -- Armed men begin their assault on the U.S. Consulate.
9:59 p.m.[/B] -- A surveillance drone is directed to fly over the U.S. compound, but it is unarmed.
10:32 p.m.[/B] -- The Office of the Secretary Defense and the Joint Staff are notified of the attack by the National Military Command Center at the Pentagon. "The information is quickly passed to Secretary Panetta and General Dempsey."
11 p.m.[/B] -- Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey meet with President Obama at the White House where they discuss the unfolding situation and how to respond. The meeting had been previously scheduled.
11:10 p.m.[/B] -- The surveillance drone arrives over the Benghazi facility.
11:30 p.m.[/B] -- All surviving U.S. personnel are evacuated from the consulate. U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and State Department computer expert Sean Smith were killed in the initial assault.
September 12[/B]
Midnight to 2 a.m.[/B] -- Panetta and other senior leaders discuss possible options for further violence if it were to break out. Panetta gives verbal orders for Marine anti-terrorist teams from Rota, Spain, to prepare to deploy to Tripoli and Benghazi. Panetta also orders a special operations force team training in Croatia and an additional special operations force team in the United States to prepare to deploy to a staging base in southern Italy.
1:30 a.m.[/B] -- A six-man security team from the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli arrives in Benghazi.
2:39 a.m. to 2:53 a.m.[/B] -- The National Military Command Center gives formal authorization for the deployment of the two special operations force teams from Croatia and the United States.
5:15 a.m. [/B]-- Attackers launch assault on a second U.S. facility in Benghazi. Two former U.S. Navy SEALs acting as security contractors are killed. They are identified as Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.
6:05 a.m. [/B]-- A C-17 aircraft in Germany is told to prepare to deploy to Libya to evacuate the consulate personnel.
7:40 a.m.[/B] -- The first wave of Americans are evacuated to Tripoli via airplane.

 

[Section112]

Merge - I don't have another side. They are both aholes. You say nothing about how the security requests were made again and again and no response. Every intelligence expert worth their salt thought this was a coordinated attack. These folks had serious weapons that don't just pop up in a street protest. This was a dangerous place and they did not do their jobs before, during and after the attack and are still BSing the public. You seem to believe everything you read and love to support your thoughts with stuff from articles. Common sense would say they screwed up here big time but I guess then go talk to the families of the deceased. Why did it take Hillary so long to testify on this - I guess cause she fell on her head? Common wake up. Both parties have engaged in lots of cover ups and this is just another one of them. Its a huge failing and noone has really taken the blame here. Its hard to believe someone with your intelligence believes this hook line and sinker.

 

[Muggsy Blue]

I am ashamed, deeply ashamed of every Democrat and Repubulican Congressperson, and our President who allow the continuance of almost 7,000 dead American military to continue in Iraqu and Afghanistan. It shames me and saddens me every day.

 

[Section112]

I agree Muggsy. We are getting nothing out of these conflicts. We need to stay out of it, secure our own borders and fix our own problems. Glad we are getting out where we can but its not fast enough unfortunately.

 

[HALL85]

Originally posted by Section112:

Merge - I don't have another side. They are both aholes. You say nothing about how the security requests were made again and again and no response. Every intelligence expert worth their salt thought this was a coordinated attack. These folks had serious weapons that don't just pop up in a street protest. This was a dangerous place and they did not do their jobs before, during and after the attack and are still BSing the public. You seem to believe everything you read and love to support your thoughts with stuff from articles. Common sense would say they screwed up here big time but I guess then go talk to the families of the deceased. Why did it take Hillary so long to testify on this - I guess cause she fell on her head? Common wake up. Both parties have engaged in lots of cover ups and this is just another one of them. Its a huge failing and noone has really taken the blame here. Its hard to believe someone with your intelligence believes this hook line and sinker.

Section, thanks for making that point. There is document after document over a series of weeks where the Ambassador himself expressed concern about the volitility and danger and nothing was acted on. This was a major screw-up and then they've been scrambling since.

Merge's first line of defense is to point out a Bush failing instead of facing up to what happened.

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by Section112:

Merge - I don't have another side. They are both aholes. You say nothing about how the security requests were made again and again and no response. Every intelligence expert worth their salt thought this was a coordinated attack. These folks had serious weapons that don't just pop up in a street protest. This was a dangerous place and they did not do their jobs before, during and after the attack and are still BSing the public. You seem to believe everything you read and love to support your thoughts with stuff from articles. Common sense would say they screwed up here big time but I guess then go talk to the families of the deceased. Why did it take Hillary so long to testify on this - I guess cause she fell on her head? Common wake up. Both parties have engaged in lots of cover ups and this is just another one of them. Its a huge failing and noone has really taken the blame here. Its hard to believe someone with your intelligence believes this hook line and sinker.

Regarding the additional security requests... How often are security requests made? How often are they granted? What conditions help make the decision to provide that security? How many agents would it have taken to prevent what happened? Would additional agents just have resulted in more deaths?

Unless we truly know those answers, we can not make informed opinions. I do not have details though I am sure everywhere we have people stationed, they would like more security, and I am sure we have to make calculated decisions because of limited resources.

The folks had serious weapons that absolutely would pop up in a protest because those weapons are on the street everyday in Libya. They are non uncommon there.

The talk about the video afterwards would not have changed what happened. But maybe our government needed to say something about it so more events didn't break out? There were around 25 protests related to the video, some of them violent. How do you know for sure that this had nothing to do with the video? Early reports said there was intelligence saying that there was a phone call from an Al-Qaida group in Africa that told the libian group to take a cue from the cairo protests and go forward with an attack.

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by HALL85:

Merge's first line of defense is to point out a Bush failing instead of facing up to what happened.

That is not a line of defense. It is wondering if the same standards apply to both sides.

I am not defending anyone. It is obvious there was a failure... I am just not going to join into the partisan nonsense.
I didn't blame Bush for 9/11 either.

 

[shu09]

Originally posted by HALL85:

Originally posted by Section112:

Merge - I don't have another side. They are both aholes. You say nothing about how the security requests were made again and again and no response. Every intelligence expert worth their salt thought this was a coordinated attack. These folks had serious weapons that don't just pop up in a street protest. This was a dangerous place and they did not do their jobs before, during and after the attack and are still BSing the public. You seem to believe everything you read and love to support your thoughts with stuff from articles. Common sense would say they screwed up here big time but I guess then go talk to the families of the deceased. Why did it take Hillary so long to testify on this - I guess cause she fell on her head? Common wake up. Both parties have engaged in lots of cover ups and this is just another one of them. Its a huge failing and noone has really taken the blame here. Its hard to believe someone with your intelligence believes this hook line and sinker.

Section, thanks for making that point. There is document after document over a series of weeks where the Ambassador himself expressed concern about the volitility and danger and nothing was acted on. This was a major screw-up and then they've been scrambling since.

Merge's first line of defense is to point out a Bush failing instead of facing up to what happened.

So based on that line of thinking, every security request should be rubber stamped every single time. Just because the Ambassador requested it doesn't mean it automatically gets approved.

Hindsight is 20/20. It might look bad given what happened but I bet this goes on at other embassies every day and we don't hear about it. But that's America, the ultimate reactionary society that always has to have somebody to blame.

 

[Muggsy Blue]

There is a failure, a complete failure on both sides of the aisle to keep us in that hell hole part of the world where we are detested and despised. The deaths this week and to our ambassador last year were horrible, but no more horrible than the men and woman in the military who die every day. Where is the righteous indignation over their lives that are sacrificed every day over our glutinous need for oil?

 

[Section112]

09 - "it might look bad" - it was really bad - and your and my taxes are paying a lot of money for folks who work in government every day who's jobs it is to protect these folks and they screwed up royally and people died. And no one has been held accountable. You play with fire and you get burned and then you blame every one else. We should not have been there. If we were there those folks should have had lots more protection than a few people. The whole area was filled with unrest and the country was going through a civil war. I mean common. If you can't see a problem with that then you truly are completely bias. No matter who is in power (Democraps or Republicants) this should not have happened and then it was covered up and there are still not good answers. You really believe all the garbage that is being spewed. Sometimes when it smells like a rat and looks like a rat, it's a rat. This is a cover up and a big one. If I was an ambassador in another hot spot I would have no faith that the US govt was going to protect me - none.

And Muggsy I completely agree. Get out of there. They will always sell their oil to us because we will buy it. That is the bottom line. The free market will prevail. We leave the region and they will lose all their protection and many of those countries will come crying back to us. Mark it down. We should not continue to let our soldiers die for this gain nothing cause. Getting out would go against most Repub senators. So if you think I am bias towards the Repubs, you are wrong. Screw em and get out.

 

[HALL85]

It's a sad state of affairs when we give up or turn a blind eye towards holding these elected or appointed officials responsible for their actions.

 

[Muggsy Blue]

7,000 DEAD! Tell me how we turn our back on those American men and women.

 

[PiratePride]

Muggsy.. your point is a good one and should have a thread of it's own. This one is about the failures at Benghazi.

Merge was repeating what Panetta said the other day, basically that is that there are security needs all over the world, we were blind sided, but really couldn't do anything about it.

On the contrary there were multiple documents and calls for help as pointed out by others in this thread and that by all appearances they were well beyond the routine. If Merge could point to one other embassy that said that they couldn't defend themselves against an attack in this timeframe, we'll, then he might have a point. But he can't and he doesn't. Protect the administration at all costs!!!!! yeah that's the ticket.

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by PiratePride:

Merge was repeating what Panetta said the other day, basically that is that there are security needs all over the world, we were blind sided, but really couldn't do anything about it.

On the contrary there were multiple documents and calls for help as pointed out by others in this thread and that by all appearances they were well beyond the routine. If Merge could point to one other embassy that said that they couldn't defend themselves against an attack in this timeframe, we'll, then he might have a point. But he can't and he doesn't. Protect the administration at all costs!!!!! yeah that's the ticket.

How often are threats made to US posts abroad?
How often are those threats actually legitimate?
How often are additional security requests made?

If you can not answer those questions, you are forming an opinion about something you know nothing about.

I am not protecting the administration. I am using logic. I also don't blame the Bush administration for 9/11 even though we knew that Bin laden was determined to strike the US, and that al qeada was in the US, and that they might use planes as missiles.

 

[PiratePride]

Merge -
Let me ask you a question...... How many of those threats actually made it up to the 7th floor at State? that's where Sec'y State's offices are. . If you don't know the answer to that question, then you are forming an opinion about something that you know nothing about. The requests from Benghazi did get to the highest levels at State as per Gen'l Dempsey.

No one is disputing the fact that we deal wih many threats on a day to day basis (as Penatta was quick to point out). The urgency of the Benghazi requests and the level to which they rose should have raised a flag somehwere in Dept of State.
You and the main stream media seem to be ok with the rationale for not having taken any pro-active measures to heighten security.

You conveniently leave out the lack of response during a 7 - 8 hour period during the attacks. I guess you are satisfied with Panetta's explanation and that's fine, but there are a lot of unanswered questions. Like what was Pres Obama doing during the attacks. He made a comment to Panetta early on to use whatever is necessary to help the embassy and then disappears. If they had contemplated using forces that were stationed outside of Libya, they would have needed explicit instructions from the President. Was that even seriously considered? I'd like to know. Panetta was quite vague in his testimony.

You conveniently leave out the fact that this administration purposefully mis-led the American people for weeks about the attack itself and it's source. You don't question why this happened? Could it be political reasons???

You conevniently mention 9/11 and George Bush ... which has no connection with Benghazi ... except that they were both had conections to Al Quada terrorists. Nice of you not to blame 9/11 on Bush. Instead, maybe you could blame Pres Clinton who put up those walls between intelligence gathering agencies that prevented them from sharing information.

 

[HALL85]

Merge only sees things one way.

BTW, did anyone hear Obama commit last night to direct any of the recent tax increases toward lowering the debt?

More money to spend on more new government programs....can't wait.

 

[Merge]

I have no idea how high requests go. Neither do you.

I have no idea what flags were raised for intelligence received. Neither do you.

I am ok with the rationale for not taking additional measures is because we know there is an inherent risk associated with having posts abroad. Attacks happen. We will not prevent them all.

Are you as critical for the following attacks? Do you know the details of these attacks? Do you know the intelligence received beforehand? Do you know what security requests were made prior?

June 14, 2002[/B], U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Suicide bomber kills 12 and injures 51.
February 20, 2003[/B], international diplomatic compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Truck bomb kills 17.
February 28, 2003[/B], U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Gunmen on motorcycles killed two consulate guards.
July 30, 2004[/B], U.S. embassy in Taskkent, Uzbekistan
Suicide bomber kills two.
December 6, 2004[/B], U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Militants stormed and occupied perimeter wall. Five killed, 10 wounded.
March 2, 2006[/B], U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Suicide car bomber killed four, including a U.S. diplomate directly targeted by the assailants.
September 12, 2006[/B], U.S. embassy in Damascus, Syria
Gunmen attacked embassy with grenades, automatic weapons, and a car bomb (though second truck bomb failed to detonate). One killed and 13 wounded.
January 12, 2007[/B], U.S. embassy in Athens, Greece
A rocket-propelled grenade was fired at the embassy building. No one was injured.
July 9, 2008[/B], U.S. consulate in Istanbul, Turkey
Armed men attacked consulate with pistols and shotguns. Three policemen killed.
March 18, 2008[/B], U.S. embassy in Sana'a, Yemen
Mortar attack misses embassy, hits nearby girls' school instead.
September 17, 2008[/B], U.S. embassy in Sana'a, Yemen
Militants dressed as policemen attacked the embassy with RPGs, rifles, grenades and car bombs. Six Yemeni soldiers and seven civilians were killed. Sixteen more were injured


I will assume you do not, and I will draw my own conclusions as to why...

 

[PiratePride]

ob·fus·cate verb \ˈab-fə-ˌskat; ab-ˈfəs-ˌkat, əb-\

ob·fus·cat·edob·fus·cat·ing








Definition of OBFUSCATE

transitive verb



1

a[/I] : darken

b[/I] : to make obscure



2

: confuse

intransitive verb



: to be evasive, unclear, or confusing

? ob·fus·ca·tion \ˌab-(ˌ)fəs-ˈka-shən\ noun

? ob·fus·ca·to·ry \ab-ˈfəs-kə-ˌtȯr-c, əb-\ adjective



See obfuscate defined for English-language learners »


Examples of OBFUSCATE



Politicians keep obfuscating the issues.Their explanations only serve to obfuscate and confuse.


Origin of OBFUSCATE

Late Latin obfuscatus, past participle of obfuscare, from Latin ob- in the way + fuscus dark brown ? more at dusk

First Known Use: 1577


Related to OBFUSCATE



Synonyms
confuse

Antonyms
illuminate







Related Words
upset

Near Antonyms
break down

 

[Merge]

You are the one who has decided Obama has blood on his hands based on the facts around the case.

I have read the details of what happened and I do not agree with you. We can disagree, I am just wondering if you are consistent. As long as you are, and have researched all of the details around the attacks on US embassies and consulates under all sitting presidents, I will take no issue with your post.

 

[HALL85]

I find it odd that the so-called experts in the media don't even ask any of these questions about other examples of threats and how they were escalated and responded to. Just more journalistic incompetence.

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by HALL85:

I find it odd that the so-called experts in the media don't even ask any of these questions about other examples of threats and how they were escalated and responded to. Just more journalistic incompetence.

I am guessing a lot of that information would be classified, but that is one of the questions I haven't seen but should have been addressed in this investigation.

 

[HALL85]

I was at a healthcare conference earlier this week in D.C. and the keynote speaker was Bob Woodward, who was fascinating. In addition there were a host of Congressman speaking including Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH).

This topic of investigative reporting was obviously front and center and Woodward spoke of two concerns. One, that even with the proliferation of media and internet, we know so much less of what is going on in the White House today. He indicated that we ended up knowing about 90% of what went on in the Nixon administration, but pointed to a conversation he had with Al Gore about how much we really knew about the Clinton years and Gore responded "1%" and if he ever did a "tell-all" book (which he told Woodward he would never do...lol), that might increase to "2%".

His biggest concern with the press and media in general was that there is a complete lack of real research and investigative reporting; essentially we have more media outlets, however the content is now woefully superficial. (I think we would all agree with that). His concern with that was that he wondered what "big thing" is going to be missed because of that. He pointed to an example of our food supply and importation of prescription drugs being a potential target for terrorism, however we are only dependant on government agencies. He felt the press had a role in digging these issues. As he took questions from the audience (mostly Hospital execs), one woman asked how 60 Minutes could conduct an hour interview with the President and Secretary of State and not once mention Benghazi....Woodward then told the audience that the woman was NOT his sister....

Final point I found amusing was that both Dem and Rep Congressman that spoke agreed that the dialogue in DC has ceased. Republicans pointed to Obama as the cause; Dems pointed to the Tea Party (which I find odd that you can blame a minority party for something that the majority of politicians could easily solve themselves). Unfortunately, I left that meeting even more discouraged about the leadership (or lack thereof) in Washington.

 

[Section112]

Love a lot of stuff that Woodward is saying and the guy has huge credibility. The political process is broken and so is the press. No substance anymore just tweets...

 

[HALL85]

Originally posted by Section112:

Love a lot of stuff that Woodward is saying and the guy has huge credibility. The political process is broken and so is the press. No substance anymore just tweets...

The amazing thing was that Woodward was only 29 when he broke Watergate...