The Truth About Benghazi

[Shady]

Before you resort to calling me names, why not find examples of me criticizing the Bush administration on 9/11. But, let me save you the effort - I didn't do that, because I am not a hypocrite.

If you get to call people racist for ideas you consider racist, than I can certainly call you out for hypocritical stances on so-called open government. Asking why an ambassador's requests for security were denied or ignored resulting in his assassination is completely legitimate.

[Shady]

Nobody thinks that open government will come or should come to the worlds of intelligence or security, except maybe the conspiracy set. And for them, that's all they care about.

More meh to power.

[punked]

If you get to call people racist for ideas you consider racist, than I can certainly call you out for hypocritical stances on so-called open government. Asking why an ambassador's requests for security were denied or ignored resulting in his assassination is completely legitimate.

Yep and asking why Republicans cut budgets even as they knew there wasn't enough security and why they continue to cut those budgets is fair game to. I'll wait.

[Shady]

Yep and asking why Republicans cut budgets even as they knew there wasn't enough security and why they continue to cut those budgets is fair game to. I'll wait.

That has nothing to do with the ignoring of the ambassadors requests and the failure to move military assets into the area.

[Michael Hardner]

If you get to call people racist for ideas you consider racist, than I can certainly call you out for hypocritical stances on so-called open government.

Right, except I don't call people racist, and I know what racism is but you don't know what open government is.

Asking why an ambassador's requests for security were denied or ignored resulting in his assassination is completely legitimate.

It's pure politics. Just like asking why memos about threats to America's airlines are 'legitimate' but still ... politics.

You refuse to see that I'm siding with Republicans on one issue and with Democrats on another, therefore not political. You on the other hand, seem to be siding with your politics as usual.

[punked]

That has nothing to do with the ignoring of the ambassadors requests and the failure to move military assets into the area.

Has everything to do with. Once you know your cuts cost lives you think you would stop them yet people like Rand Paul continue to push them. He is a failure.

[Shady]

Has everything to do with. Once you know your cuts cost lives you think you would stop them yet people like Rand Paul continue to push them. He is a failure.

Nope. Competent people know where security needs to be strong, and where it doesn't. Especially when an ambassador is asking for it. Utter failure.

[punked]

Nope. Competent people know where security needs to be strong, and where it doesn't. Especially when an ambassador is asking for it. Utter failure.

Yah that must be why all those Americans died under Bush that I posted thatyou refuse to address the Republican leader wasn't competent. Happy you finally admit that one. You can come back when you have a President that has no Americans die on foreign soil until then your point is moot and even more so because your guys created this environmentin the first place.

[Shady]

Yah that must be why all those Americans died under Bush that I posted thatyou refuse to address the Republican leader wasn't competent. Happy you finally admit that one. You can come back when you have a President that has no Americans die on foreign soil until then your point is moot and even more so because your guys created this environmentin the first place.

You're changing the subject now. It was Obama's decision to bomb Libya and remove the government in power. The least they could do is protect an ambassador is a hostile area, especially when he asks for help. And not blame it on a non-existent protest.

[punked]

You're changing the subject now. It was Obama's decision to bomb Libya and remove the government in power. The least they could do is protect an ambassador is a hostile area, especially when he asks for help. And not blame it on a non-existent protest.

I am not changing the subject I am trying to compare apples to apples. You agree then Iraq where countless Americans have died even though many WARNED Bush that would happen was his fault then or are you just a hypocrite? What is it Shady?

[bush_cheney2004]

I am not changing the subject I am trying to compare apples to apples. You agree then Iraq where countless Americans have died even though many WARNED Bush that would happen was his fault then or are you just a hypocrite?

They weren't countless.....the count is readily available. Some are even buried at Arlington.

[BubberMiley]

Yep, and it matters why she cited a non-existent protest, of a irrelevant youtube movie as the cause of the attack.

Why?

[BubberMiley]

The least they could do is protect an ambassador is a hostile area, especially when he asks for help.

Big of you to finally criticize the republicans for voting to cut security funding.

[Shady]

Big of you to finally criticize the republicans for voting to cut security funding.

Security funding wasn't why the ambassador's request wasn't met.

[punked]

Security funding wasn't why the ambassador's request wasn't met.

Citation needed. You have done nothing but make up facts so I will wait for that citation.

[GostHacked]

Citation needed. You have done nothing but make up facts so I will wait for that citation.

Let's even go with that security funding was there. Now why was extra security requests went unanswered in a hot zone?

You have NATO helping the rebels to take down Gaddafi. You have known Al-Queda types among the rebels. But they are arm and funded anyways knowing the blowback risk. Clinton indicated she did not read those cables from Benghazi. Which I'd say is bull because certain messages get priority and are always brought to the Secretary of State's desk right away. They have an elaborate grading scheme and this would have gotten high priority. This would have gotten that high priority, the request was made several times which would have thrown up flags all over the place. But went unnoticed or were ignored.

So if she did not read them, why? Incompetence? Willful ignorance? Did they not get to her because of someone else intervening?

Call me crazy but a lot of this still does not add up right.

[Shady]

Let's even go with that security funding was there. Now why was extra security requests went unanswered in a hot zone?

You have NATO helping the rebels to take down Gaddafi. You have known Al-Queda types among the rebels. But they are arm and funded anyways knowing the blowback risk. Clinton indicated she did not read those cables from Benghazi. Which I'd say is bull because certain messages get priority and are always brought to the Secretary of State's desk right away. They have an elaborate grading scheme and this would have gotten high priority. This would have gotten that high priority, the request was made several times which would have thrown up flags all over the place. But went unnoticed or were ignored.

So if she did not read them, why? Incompetence? Willful ignorance? Did they not get to her because of someone else intervening?

Call me crazy but a lot of this still does not add up right.

Exactly. It doesn't take any security funding at all to deploy some marines to an embassy under threat. Punked is just an excuse maker for elected officials that messed up.

[Michael Hardner]

This would have gotten that high priority, the request was made several times which would have thrown up flags all over the place. But went unnoticed or were ignored.

So if she did not read them, why? Incompetence? Willful ignorance? Did they not get to her because of someone else intervening?

Call me crazy but a lot of this still does not add up right.

How can you be so sure what priority these would have ?

[GostHacked]

How can you be so sure what priority these would have ?

In the end I cannot be sure.

If they made requests for security before, and they already had known there were apparent previous attempts to attack the consulate, that would have pushed the priority to a higher level. Several flags would have been raised for it to get higher priority. Unless someone in the State Department were derelict in their duty and did not get those messages to Clinton.

Incompetence? Deliberate? Lost on Bureaucracy?

[Michael Hardner]

In the end I cannot be sure.

If they made requests for security before, and they already had known there were apparent previous attempts to attack the consulate, that would have pushed the priority to a higher level. Several flags would have been raised for it to get higher priority. Unless someone in the State Department were derelict in their duty and did not get those messages to Clinton.

Incompetence? Deliberate? Lost on Bureaucracy?

To answer: Perhaps, no, perhaps.

This new fad of blaming every failure on a secret plot needs to get nipped in the bud IMO.

[GostHacked]

To answer: Perhaps, no, perhaps.

This new fad of blaming every failure on a secret plot needs to get nipped in the bud IMO.

I've posted the short youtube clip about Bohner admitting to the gun running but he would not go further into it.

http://www.foxnews.c...ck-sources-say/

The CIA were told to stand down. This information came out sopn after the attack, so was not brought to light because of any hearing.

Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later on the annex itself was denied by the CIA chain of command -- who also told the CIA operators twice to "stand down" rather than help the ambassador's team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.

Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was part of a small team who was at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When he and others heard the shots fired, they informed their higher-ups at the annex to tell them what they were hearing and requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to "stand down," according to sources familiar with the exchange. Soon after, they were again told to "stand down."

Not only did those cables get answered, they were answered with a huge NO.

**This was during the attacks I might add where the requests for extra security were answered with a no.

Edited January 29, 2013 by GostHacked

[punked]

I've posted the short youtube clip about Bohner admitting to the gun running but he would not go further into it.

http://www.foxnews.c...ck-sources-say/

The CIA were told to stand down. This information came out sopn after the attack, so was not brought to light because of any hearing.

Not only did those cables get answered, they were answered with a huge NO.

**This was during the attacks I might add where the requests for extra security were answered with a no.

This is where again facts trip you up. You might have a point if the people involved died in the consulate they however did not. They died in the CIA annex at a safe house. You really need to straighten out your time line because again you show you have no clue what went down that night making me believe you have created a story in your head instead of the one which actually happened and thus your opinion means nothing. Facts matter.

Instead of citing "Fox New" articles full of half truths if you really care how about you read the state report.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf

I'll wait for your citations and notes on it.

Edited January 29, 2013 by punked

[GostHacked]

This is where again facts trip you up. You might have a point if the people involved died in the consulate they however did not. They died in the CIA annex at a safe house.

So there was not attack on the consulate then? These people attacked the CIA annex?

You really need to straighten out your time line because again you show you have no clue what went down that night making me believe you have created a story in your head instead of the one which actually happened and thus your opinion means nothing. Facts matter.

Instead of citing "Fox New" articles full of half truths if you really care how about you read the state report.

http://www.state.gov...tion/202446.pdf

I'll wait for your citations and notes on it.

I don't trust the government to come clean on what really happened. Neither should you.

But here we go .. I can assume you have read the article at this time??

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf

The U.S. Special Mission in Benghazi, established in November 2011, was the successor to his highly successful endeavor as Special Envoy to the rebel-led government that eventually toppled Muammar Qaddafi in fall 2011. The Special Mission bolstered U.S. support for Libya’s democratic transition through engagement with eastern Libya, the birthplace of the revolt against Qaddafi and a regional power center.

As we know Stevens was a key player in contacting and allowing an avenue for getting the rebels funded and equipped.

A series of terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11-12, 2012, resulted in the deaths of four U.S. government personnel, Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty; seriously wounded two other U.S. personnel and injured three Libyan contract guards; and resulted in the destruction and abandonment of the U.S. Special Mission compound and Annex.

1. The attacks were security related, involving arson, small arms and machine gun fire, and the use of RPGs, grenades, and mortars against U.S. personnel at two separate facilities – the SMC and the Annex – and en route between them. Responsibility for the tragic loss of life, injuries, and damage to U.S. facilities and property rests solely and completely with the terrorists who perpetrated the attacks. The Board concluded that there was no protest prior to the attacks, which were unanticipated in their scale and intensity.

Attacks happened at both locations. Also there were no protests!!

2. Systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department (the “Department”) resulted in a Special Mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place.

Systematic failures,

Overall, the number of Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS) security staff in Benghazi on the day of the attack and in the months and weeks leading up to it was inadequate, despite repeated requests from Special Mission Benghazi and Embassy Tripoli for additional staffing. Board members found a pervasive realization among personnel who served in Benghazi that the Special Mission was not a high priority for Washington when it came to security-related requests, especially those relating to staffing.

They knew about the security risks as several requests were made. But due to systematic failures, nothing was done about it.

The insufficient Special Mission security platform was at variance with the appropriate Overseas Security Policy Board (OSPB) standards with respect to perimeter and interior security. Benghazi was also severely under-resourced with regard to certain needed security equipment, although DS funded and installed in 2012 a number of physical security upgrades.

Failure after failure after failure.

In the weeks and months leading up to the attacks, the response from post, Embassy Tripoli, and Washington to a deteriorating security situation was inadequate. At the same time, the SMC’s dependence on the armed but poorly skilled Libyan February 17 Martyrs’ Brigade (February 17) militia members and unarmed, locally contracted Blue Mountain Libya (BML) guards for security support was misplaced.

Proof they knew of the attacks and the security situation in Benghazi were not good enough. So they could not thwart that last attack.

The Board found that Ambassador Stevens made the decision to travel to Benghazi independently of Washington, per standard practice.

Well that was quite stupid on Steven's part.

Communication, cooperation, and coordination among Washington, Tripoli, and Benghazi functioned collegially at the working-level but were constrained by a lack of transparency, responsiveness, and leadership at the senior levels. Among various Department bureaus and personnel in the field, there appeared to be very real confusion over who, ultimately, was responsible and empowered to make decisions based on both policy and security considerations.

Good think you posted this PDF Punked .... quite damning for them. But these are the risks they take when NATO thinks regime change is needed.

But I seemed to have found one thing I wanted verification on. There was no consulate.

page 14-15

In December 2011, the Under Secretary for Management approved a one-year continuation of the U.S. Special Mission in Benghazi, which was never a consulate and never formally notified to the Libyan government. Stevens arrived in Tripoli on May 26, 2012, to replace Cretz as Ambassador.

I am going to keep reading.

[punked]

So there was not attack on the consulate then? These people attacked the CIA annex?

I don't trust the government to come clean on what really happened. Neither should you.

But here we go .. I can assume you have read the article at this time??

http://www.state.gov...tion/202446.pdf

As we know Stevens was a key player in contacting and allowing an avenue for getting the rebels funded and equipped.

Attacks happened at both locations. Also there were no protests!!

Systematic failures,

They knew about the security risks as several requests were made. But due to systematic failures, nothing was done about it.

Failure after failure after failure.

Proof they knew of the attacks and the security situation in Benghazi were not good enough. So they could not thwart that last attack.

Well that was quite stupid on Steven's part.

Good think you posted this PDF Punked .... quite damning for them. But these are the risks they take when NATO thinks regime change is needed.

But I seemed to have found one thing I wanted verification on. There was no consulate.

page 14-15

I am going to keep reading.

Please keep reading because I am noticing you are cherry picking the report. I know you want to create your own reality but that just isn't the way these things work. As for the report being damning, no more damning then the report on how Bush let 3000 Americans die on American soil. I don't know what to tell you we all knew their were failures just none of those failures are what you claimed they were.

Edited January 29, 2013 by punked

[Shady]

Please keep reading because I am noticing you are cherry picking the report. I know you want to create your own reality but that just isn't the way these things work. As for the report being damning, no more damning then the report on how Bush let 3000 Americans die on American soil. I don't know what to tell you we all knew their were failures just none of those failures are what you claimed they were.

Using your logic, Bush can blame Democrats for gutting funding for intelligence, especially human intelligence. Democrats slashed intelligence funding the years preceding 911. So they're to blame, right punked?