President Obama’s top spokesman — and Vice President Joe Biden, in last week’s debate — have been busy pointing fingers of blame at State and the IC.
It won’t work. Neither Foggy Bottom nor the intel community’s legion of spooks, analysts and secret-keepers is likely to go quietly.
Indeed, State has already started the pushback. It has pointedly released the transcript of an Oct. 9 media briefing in which Brad Klapper of the Associated Press asks what “led officials to believe for the first several days that this was prompted by protests against the video?”
Someone described only as “Senior State Department Official Two” answers, “That is a question you would have to ask others. That was not our conclusion.”
I don’t think they’ll be able to contain this internecine war until November 6th. I sure hope they can’t.
[Update a while later]
Rudy Guliani: “The White House is trying to run out the clock.”
Plus this: “Am I debating with the president’s campaign?…If this weren’t a Democratic president, I think you people would be going crazy.”
No kidding.
[Update a few minutes later]
You know, per Rudy’s comments, if this were a Republican administration, I’d be just as outraged. In fact, I’d be even more so, because I’d have higher expectations. But the usual suspects come along in comments to pathetically try to defend the indefensible, and blame the Republicans.
President Obama has to deal with the fact that the President/VP/SecDef/SecState/Joint Chiefs/etc get almost instantaneous intel from myriad sources – miraculous intel – they can watch events unfold. They twiddled their thumbs for six hours as America was attacked and Americans killed, and everyone in the chain of command in all those organizations knows this. Then they lied about it for 8 days, up to and including the President in front of the UN. This will not end well for Obama, Hillary, the democrats or the media.
Supposing they really did understand what was going on, What was the chain of command supposed to do in those six hours? Could the US have put troops on the ground (or pilots in the air) in a way that would have made a difference?
What could they do for six hours? How about not lie about it?
IcePilot seems to be implying something to save lives or kill/capture the terrorists could have been done in those six hours. That strikes me as an interesting possibility that I hadn’t heard before.
If they couldn’t get special forces in Blackhawks in within six hours, that also says something about our readiness for an attack in that region in general.
I don’t know what happened to the choppers that were pulled out of Iraq (moved to Afghanistan?), but it might have been useful to base a few in Sigonella once the turmoil in Libya started last year. That would have been about 500 miles or three hours away (though outside their combat but not ferrying range). Or we could have had some in Tripoli, which is just barely outside of combat range. It’s actually an interesting question, what they could have done in six hours, but I’ll bet that no one at the Pentagon was even asked.
I like to think that we could have done something forceful to help. And if you must politicize it, that’s where you’d get traction with Obama supporters. Not that it would change my vote, but I’d grant that Obama would be responsible for not responding, and it might change the minds of undecided voters. I do expect a retaliation strike from Obama, and if it comes before the election, I expect Republicans to complain.
“I’ll bet that no one at the Pentagon was even asked.”
If IcePilot’s assertion about the Joint Chiefs getting instant intel is correct, the DOD should have offered options, they shouldn’t have to be asked about options.
You have the whole friggin’ 6th Fleet in the Med – based in Naples Italy.
And ANY time you send civilians into a danger zone you better have 17 plans set up to get them out.
Especially since said civilians were begging for support for weeks and months before they died.
Before.
They.
DIED.
How any liberal no matter how brain benumbed they may be, can support Obama after the hideous torture and death of these 4 citizens is really beyond me.
That’s a good point. I wonder if there was a carrier (or even a frigate) within combat range? If so, Blackhawks could have struck from there, or refueled on it from Naples or Sigonella. But again, I wouldn’t be shocked if we didn’t have any of that kind of equipment in the area, given this administration’s general defense posture.
Gregg, do you think we have plans to get all our civilians out of all the US embassies around the world? Do you think we have had them under various Republican administrations? I don’t see how this is political. In 1983, first our embassy in Beirut was attacked (17 Americans died) and then, again in Beirut, just a few months later, our own Marines were attacked in their barracks (241 US Marines died). I don’t think either attack was reason enough for people to stop supporting President Reagan.
Gregg, do you think we have plans to get all our civilians out of all the US embassies around the world?
We probably don’t worry about Ottawa or Canberra, but we sure as hell should have had a plan for Benghazi. Not to mention much better security, as they repeatedly requested, to no avail.
Gregg, do you think we have plans to get all our civilians out of all the US embassies around the world?
No.
But having less security –far less security – in Libya than there is in Paris is incompetence.
There are 30 Marines in Paris. A building designed and constructed from scratch as a secure patch of sovereign territory.
Failure to have a secure building is a demand for -more- troops, not less.
But they preferred State Department law enforcement personnel (who happened to be former military) to the military site security team. And State didn’t provide enough bodies.
The sites secured by the military probably do indeed have an evacuation plan. Probably more than one. Even in Paris.
do you think we have plans to get all our civilians out of all the US embassies around the world?
The US was involved militarily in the violent overthrow of the Libya government just a year ago. It’s been less than a year since Khaddafi was killed. Not everyone in Libya was against Khaddafi, and even more weren’t happy about US involvement in their country. Under these conditions, if the US government didn’t have plans for evacuation of any US civilians including US embassy personnel; then several people have been grossly negligent in their duties.
But why did they “lie”? I don’t know what they knew, so I don’t know if they were lying. (For the record: I don’t think Bush lied about Iraq either. It takes a lot to make me think that Presidents lie about soldiers’ lives.)
But here’s a speculative idea: what if the US knew from the start that it was Al Queda and the DOD saw a counter-terrorism opportunity. In that case, the White House might put out “disinformation” so that Al Queda wasn’t tipped off. Nah, that would be giving the world’s most capable military too much credit, right? The US is just a bunch of bumblers when someone you don’t like is in the White House, eh?
So that Al Qaeda wasn’t “tipped off” about what? That we knew it wasn’t about a movie?
And you really can’t imagine why they might lie? Really?
Bob-1: But why did they “lie”?
President “God” didn’t want to get involved in a stand-off with terrorists, especially not before the election. Instead, he chose to blame it on the video, just as he always chooses to argue with straw men instead of the actual arguments against his own policies. It’s much easier to take care of one vulnerable filmmaker in the US than deal with an unknown number of armed, blood-thirsty terrorists.
At his core, Obama is a man of words, not action. Responding to the AQ attack requires courage, conviction, and a commitment to dealing with the consequences of this action.
what if the US knew from the start that it was Al Queda and the DOD saw a counter-terrorism opportunity.
Starting with your premise, if this is true, then someone needs to explain why US embassy civilian personnel were used as bait.
In that case, the White House might put out “disinformation” so that Al Queda wasn’t tipped off.
You can’t “tip off” those that carried out the attack. They already know their motivation and tactics.
Nah, that would be giving the world’s most capable military too much credit, right?
Actually, I’m sure they take your idea as an insult. Again, starting with your premise that the US military would use civilians as bait and let them get killed.
The US is just a bunch of bumblers when someone you don’t like is in the White House, eh?
Perhaps so. Does this explain the blue ribbon panel and months of investigation into the WTC/Pentagon attacks that resulted in a report anyone can access and download online today? Because for me, I think the least that can be done is for Congress to ask a few questions about how a US Ambassador was murdered.
“Actually, I’m sure they take your idea as an insult. Again, starting with your premise that the US military would use civilians as bait and let them get killed.”
I have no idea what you are talking about. And you clearly have no idea what I am talking about. The idea of bait is absurd (and insulting to me, but that never stops you.)
My issue is that this really looks like the Big O decided this would be bad for his image, and so he ignored it hoping it would go away. That isn’t the job of the President – he has to work even on the not-fun parts of the job.
It isn’t that he could have done anything positive, it’s that his actions resulted in enhancing the negative parts of the events. If he had said nothing, that would have been better than blaming the movie producer. Now the islamists believe we can be bullied into silencing their enemies for them.
“Could the US have put troops on the ground (or pilots in the air) in a way that would have made a difference?”
Yes. No guarantees but they could have tried.
But instead….”OFF TO VEGAS!!!!!! WOO HOOO!!!”
In addition, they could have also paid attention for the last few days…or few week, or few months…to all the myriad of obvious clues that trouble is brewing and not sent them there in the first place…..
Perhaps if they had the planes they requested, support could have flown from Tripoli.
What we do know is that Obama went to bed early without knowing the fate of our ambassador and was shooting from the hip blaming this on a video.
We also know that there was a drone in the air providing real time video of the attack.
And we know it took almost three weeks for the FBI to get on scene. Meanwhile, the site was/is unsecured and important documents were discovered by journalists (not just the diary mind you) after the place was pilliaged. Somehow the security tapes remained undiscovered until the FBI got there. I couldn’t imagine why there was such a delay in the “investigation.”
Also, the CIA safe house was reportedly ransacked, which means that Al Qaeda got a lot of intelligence, including identities of Libyan (and perhaps other) informers. This was a Charlie Foxtrot of the first magnitude.
I can’t reply underneath the entry but Bob-1 asks:
“Gregg, do you think we have plans to get all our civilians out of all the US embassies around the world?”
I think we SHOULD have plans to get them out of ones as fractious and dangerous as Libya. Looks like we didn’t.
“Do you think we have had them under various Republican administrations?”
As I wasn’t there at the table planning I cannot authoritatively say. If we did, they weren’t tested now were they? If there weren’t plans to get our people out of hot zones after Iran, 1980 then any subsequent administration has a black mark next to their name,
“I don’t see how this is political.”
You don’t? Why did you ask about Republican plans then, just above?
It’s thoroughly political because it’s THE JOB – get it? THE JOB of the administration/State department to plan. To protect these people who voluntarily put their butts in danger. These people COIUNTED on the administration to do it’s job.
The administration failed; they died; the administration then lied.
About as political as it gets
Here’s what really happened, according to this timeline: The attack started at 9:30 PM local. at 1:30 AM (AKA, “four hours later”) a rescue team arrived from Tripoli. This team got ambushed at around 2 AM – 4.5 hours into the attack. Two of the people killed were security personnel from this rescue party.
It’s worth pointing out that all this argument over whether or not Benghazi had enough security is taking place during a period when
Since 2010, Congress cut $296 million from the State Department’s spending request for embassy security and construction, with additional cuts in other State Department security accounts. When Paul Ryan says he wants to cut “discretionary budget items,” embassy security is a discretionary budget item.
That’s only “worth pointing out” to people unaware that the State Department testified under oath that the lack of security in Benghazi had nothing to do with budgets.
The embassy requested five (5) US security guards at Benghazi. There were three (3) stationed there, and with the arrival of Stevens’ two (2) security bodyguards, there were five (5) security personnel in the building. This is against 100+ hostiles with RPGs.
Consulates, especially temporary setups like in Benghazi, are not embassies and they are most definitely not forts.
When the consulate has been previously attacked, with warnings of future attacks, they had better be, or the personnel should be withdrawn.
There is no way to excuse this.
Consulates are not forts. If Ambassador Stevens felt the situation was too volatile, he could have closed the consulate, or just not gone there.
It’s unfortunate, but sometimes bad things happen.
So now you’re blaming the dead guy?
He did have a hand in the decision. Much like the designer of the Titanic, who went down with the ship, sometimes one can be dead and wrong.
Here’s the reality – consulates are never heavily defended. To hold off 100+ attackers with heavy weapons, you’d need to have 20 to 30 soldiers in fortified positions. You’d need a firebase, not a consulate.
The security officers on the ground know this. That’s why there was a separate safe house in Benghazi, and the plan involved evacuating to it while a quick-reaction team flew in from Tripoli.
Unfortunately, the attackers knew about the safe house, and since this is reality, not a Chuck Norris movie, the plan didn’t work perfectly.
His staff kept begging for more security, and he would’ve had a hand in that, too, no?
Wouldn’t the plan involve telling them to get out of Benghazi when the administration knew the attack was coming days in advance? Perhaps they thought having security personnel in Tripoli was sufficient to react to events in Benghazi, but that’s as stupid as protecting the White House by keeping guards stationed in Boston, which is ten miles closer than Tripoli and Benghazi. That was the plan, equivalent to getting to Logan airport, hopping on a plane, flying over New York, and landing at Reagan. Yes, the security from Tripoli landed at the Benghazi airport hours after the attack began. Then they hopped in two cars and started driving toward swarms of terrorists with rocket launchers.
So you are really saying they got the security that was asked for?
Why did they think that a team of five would be adequate in a war torn country with militias and jihadi groups roaming the streets? What do you make of the militia tasked with security being an off shoot of AQ?
This was a failure of leadership. Looks like Obama declared Mission Accomplished prematurely.
Obviously they, and by “they” I mean the people in-country, didn’t think the threat level was as high as it was. After all, we did help them overthrow Kaddaffy.
Why do you assume that Obama makes personal decisions on the security of a consulate?
Why do you assume that Obama makes personal decisions on the security of a consulate?
Strawman burning. Noted.
The question on the table is why did Obama claim the attack was motivated by the video, when reports from State pointed to specific threats by Al Qaeda unrelated to the video?
Chris, the people in country were asking for more security and not just the people in Benghazi.
I don’t think Obama was making decisions on how many security guards were needed but he is responsible for the attitude that AQ is no longer a threat and the war on terror is over. That has been a consistent theme out of his administration and apparently the leadership from Obama on down did not take AQ seriously.
AQ is bigger than one person.
At the very least, the Obama administration should have taken all the prior terror attacks against foreign governments and NGOs in the days, weeks, and months into account when deciding what security precautions were needed and they didn’t.
They had plenty of money to buy expensive hybrids and other green energy programs. Maybe it isn’t the funding but the world view of the leadership and their priorities.
Not a week before this Obama said AQ was gone #missionaccomplished.
As is often the case, it isn’t the amount of money available to government but the priorities. While the security officers at Bengazi were being paid $4 an hour, the State Department was spending over $100,000 for a charging station for their Chevy Volts in Vienna. How many Volts (at over $40,000 each) did they have in Vienna?
http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2012/10/issa-state-dept-sitting-on-billionplus-for-embassy-138402.html?hp=r2_b3
Turns out the state department is sitting on $2b meant to be spent on security.
If Darrell Issa told me the sun rose in the east, I would go out and check.
Funny, we feel the same way about you.
I find it amazing that a United States ambassador in an Al Qaeda and militant hotspot had less security than we used to employ in Mayberry to transfer Otis between cells.
The Paris Embassy has thirty Marines.
State’s finally found someone to surpass the French.
How many Marines guard the consulate in Marseilles?
When the Ambassador is there?
More than when the Ambassador is not there.
The Marines don’t normally travel with the Ambassador, so the real answer is “zero.”
Consulates are not forts. If they are not seen as secure, the ambassador can and does close them.
As many as it takes to fulfill the mission.
And more importantly, the Marines in Paris have the French police, military, special forces, and NATO at hand. Assuming there had been a single Marine in Benghazi, who could he have called up, a band of local street vendors, some of whom probably already work for Al Qaeda, who’d been given rifles and a couple hours of training a few months earlier?
Libya hadn’t stabilized yet and was a known hotspot with highly active Al Qaeda and militant cells carrying out ongoing attacks and declaring their intention to carry out more. From a security standpoint Libya should’ve been treated like Somalia or Afghanistan, but the Administration insisted on pretending that it was no more dangerous than Monaco or Norway.
Then they lied about about it, continuously, for weeks. Now they’re lying about the lies, and lying about the lies and the lies. The fish rots from the head down, and people are complaining about the stench.
if this were a Republican administration, I’d be just as outraged. In fact, I’d be even more so, because I’d have higher expectations.
Where was your outrage when Condoleezza Rice claimed that Iraq’s aluminum tubes could only be used for centrifuges (the DOE had correctly briefed her that they probably weren’t for centrifuges)? Don’t you think the slanting of Iraq intelligence had bigger repercussions than anything that happened in Benghazi? Higher expectations, indeed.
I didn’t defend that.
I was very critical of Condi Rice, particularly on her clueless comments that no one could have anticipated what Tom Clancy did.
Condi was mistaken about aluminum tubes that actually existed and were part of Saddam’s weapons program, that could potentially be used as infrastructure for a long-term weapons program. Her opinion was backed up by actual intelligence findings (that were mistaken about facts that could only be guessed at).
Susan Rice spent weeks telling us about a completely fictitious mob, after an attack on US soil that killed American officials.
So for an Iraq analogy, this would be Susan Rice coming out immediately after 9/11 and saying that Saddam ordered members of his secret police to hijack the airliners, which were filled with Republican guardsmen who were going to parachute into the White House, but that the planes were crashed into the World Trade Center and Pentagon when the Iraqi commanders found out Bush was elsewhere and that Saddam’s ground assault would miss its target.
That’s the level of honesty this administration is showing.
Susan Rice didn’t say “a mob did this.” She said, and I was watching her when she said it, that “there was no evidence of terrorism” less than a week after the attack. While she was saying this, the Libyan government was still talking about demonstrations and a mob attack.
I don’t know what evidence was available when she went on the air, but she didn’t make anything up.
Libyan government was still talking about demonstrations and a mob attack.
So you claim. What does anyone else say? How about NPR on Sept. 16th (same day Ambassador Rice appeared on Sunday news programs):
Libya’s president says he believes al-Qaida is behind a deadly attack in eastern Libya that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other U.S. staffers.
Megarif says that over the past few months, foreigners took advantage of the security vacuum and flowed into the country from Mali and Algeria. I ask if this attack was over an anti-Muslim film that sparked violent protests across the Muslim world. He shakes his head.
By the way, let’s go to the transcript to see what Ambassador Rice said on ABC (Gerrib’s go to network for video evidence that Zimmerman was lying!):
But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.
We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to — or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo.
I watched Face the Nation, and she said “no evidence of planned attack.”
The phrase you should have bolded was “current best assessment based on the information we have at present.” That means, well, “based on what we know now here’s what happened.” That’s not lying, that’s declining to jump to a conclusion.
I watched Face the Nation, and she said “no evidence of planned attack.”
Which was utter nonsense. There was abundant evidence of it, and at that point, there was no plausible alternative description. They knew there had been no demonstration.
I watched Face the Nation
LOL, really!!!! You admit that. Because you know, there’s a transcript. I laugh because Susan Rice was preceded on Face the Nation by an interview with the President of Libya who said, “The way these perpetrators acted and moved, I think we– and they’re choosing the specific date for this so-called demonstration, I think we have no– this leaves us with no doubt that this has preplanned, determined– predetermined.”
So apparently you missed this segment or lied about what the Libyans were saying. Ambassador Rice didn’t miss the segment, because they showed it to her and quized her on it. At one point, she is asked directly if she is contradicting the Libyan President, and she acknowledges that she was. In fact, that’s where she says, “We do not– we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.”
So how did you hear Ambassador Rice’s comment, but miss the reference to what the Libyan President said (which completely contradicts your previous statement)?
Oh, so now the lie is that the Libyan government claiming it was a mob attack, despite every one of us remembering the Libyan government denying it was a mob attack consistently and insistantlly since the very first day after the attack. Indeed, we remember that the statements by the Libyan government refuting the White House were the first big red flag in the press, and those statements generated a lot of coverage.
Everyone in the intelligence community knew it was a terrorist attack even as it was happening. They watched it unfold on video. The government knew it was a terrorist attack, and nothing but a terrorist attack, from the start. For the White House alone to have thought otherwise means that someone very high up, in between the top ranks of intellgence and the National Security Council or the President, had to completely reject all the intelligence and substitute their own reality, but even that wouldn’t explain why nobody in the White House double-checked with anyone – for weeks. It also can’t be believed because it is the job of the intelligence community and the duty of everyone at that level to correct any mistaken impressions the President and his advisors have, especially public ones.
Had anyone inserted their own mistaken reality and caused this entire cover-up fiasco, they’d have been marched out as the scapegoat, offering contrite explanations that they had merely assumed it was related to Egyptian protests and had been too busy to recheck. But that hasn’t happened either, meaning the decision to lie was almost certainly made at a big table where Obama was sitting in a leather chair.
Condi was mistaken about aluminum tubes
No, she lied. She was told that they probably weren’t for centrifuges, and told the public that they could only be used for centrifuges.
that actually existed and were part of Saddam’s weapons program
They were not part of a WMD program, and Rice had been told that was the case.
that could potentially be used as infrastructure for a long-term weapons program.
She said that they “are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs” after being told the opposite by DOE experts. She lied. Her punishment was being promoted to Secretary of State.
I guess it all evens out — Timmy Geithner cheated on his income taxes, and was rewarded by being made Secretary of the Treasury…
The CIA thought they were most likely for a centerfuge program, and a piece of classified intelligence that Condi didn’t reveal was that French intelligence actually spun the tubes up to 98,000 RPM and concluded they were too sophisticated to have another purpose.
The DOE experts (i.e. the people who actually do uranium enrichment) correctly told Condi that they weren’t for centrifuges, and Condi turned around and told the public that they could only be for centrifuges. She didn’t say that expert opinions differ, or that they might be for enrichment — she said something she knew to be untrue.
Wow. You’ve convinced me Jim. Only a moron would think Iran was working to build nuclear weapons or missiles to deliver them. You put my mind at ease. Let’s elect a birthday party clown for our next president because the world really is a safe place and having fun is all that’s really important.
So what were the precisely engineered aluminum tubes for again? I missed that part of your explanation.
I am so f@%^%n mad and sick of the BS.
About the ‘we have too many embassies to cover them all’ BS.
BS! BS! BS! The CiC is directly responsible for each and every embassy. First, that means protection of secrets. Second, that means protection of people. Every single position needs to have plans for protection and evacuation. The marines onsite are there to give us time and options. No position can be defended from a committed aggressor. Not to try is treasonous.
About ‘We didn’t know’ BS.
IT IS THEIR JOB TO KNOW. No excuse acceptable.
About ‘Republicans cut funding’ BS.
If that were true, which it isn’t, then pull the embassies we can not afford to protect.
If that were it, it would be deplorable. But that isn’t even the tip of the iceberg.
Not an embassy but a consulate, which has inherently smaller staff and security options.
Consulate was covered by security, did have a plan for protection and evacuation (which they executed) and did try to protect their position.
You are correct that we should have known about the upcoming attack. Unfortunately, sometimes one gets surprised (see Pearl Harbor, attack of).
It is in fact true that Republicans cut funding. So which embassies should we pull?
We did know about the upcoming attack. The very cable the White House tried to use to justify their demonstration claim said that Al Qaeda was going to launch an attack with or without a demonstration.
What Susan Rice, Obama, and Hillary have done, regarding this “Pearl Harbor” attack they couldn’t have foreseen *cough*, is to spend two weeks claiming our fleet was attacked by Germany – using Zeppelins.
Chris babbles:
“Not an embassy but a consulate, which has inherently smaller staff and security options.
Consulate was covered by security, did have a plan for protection and evacuation (which they executed) and did try to protect their position.”
Are you out of your mind?
Are you seriously trying to argue that because a consulate is not an embassy…because it’s only a few people, that they don’t require maximum security given that they are in a hot zone?
Are you saying that if a Consulate begs for security THAT IS ALREADY THERE not to be removed…that begged for more security..that they should be ignored because…
they are merely a Consulate?
What are you saying? That those few lives are not worth lots of security? That they should not have kept the Prez from heading to Vegas?
That they should not have kept the Prez from heading to Vegas? – actually, that’s why the President has a Secretary of State, and she has a staff, and we have duty officers at the Pentagon – so that somebody can handle stuff.
What I am saying is that the only level of security that could handle an attack by 100+ people armed with heavy weapons is a firebase, not a consulate and probably not an embassy.
What I am saying is that the request for more people was for TWO more people, who ended up actually being there ANYWAY.
What I am saying is that consulates by their very function are NOT military firebases, and WILL not be able to handle this level of attack.
What I am saying is that the security professionals, people who know what they were doing and aren’t One Name Wonders on the Internet, looked at the situation in advance, decided that trying to hold the consulate in the event of an attack was a lost cause, and came up with a plan to evacuate to a pre-designated safe house.
They then executed that plan. Since life is not a Chuck Norris movie, the plan didn’t work perfectly.
What I am saying is that shit happens.
How upset were you that Bush waited 12 minutes or whatever on 9/11? Obama went to bed without knowing what happened. They had a live video feed and Obama went to bed. Obama skipped his intel briefing the day of and the day after the attack.
Shit happens implies this was some unexpected event but it wasn’t. Our consulate had been attacked previously and so had other governments and NGOs. In addition that the terror group posted on their public FB page that the US consulate was next on their list. The Obama administration denied requests for security.
This was a foreseeable and preventable event.
Who knew that AQ wasnt dead and the war on terror wasn’t over? Oh just everyone but Obama and his delusional supporters.
so that somebody can handle stuff
How does this, by one iota, remove responsibility from the CiC?
Wodun – I wasn’t upset at all that Bush waited 12 minutes. It takes at least that long to move a President out of a public place.
I call bullshit on the “live video feed.” Link to a reputable source or it didn’t happen.
Link to a reputable source or it didn’t happen.
Hypocrit.
Chris pulls the old switcheroo…
So which embassies should we pull?
You just finished ranting about the difference between that and a consulate. So what say we pull the consulate rather than allowing our ambassador and staff to be killed and allowing intelligence to fall into the hands of our enemies?
It is not a question of ‘shit happens.’ It’s a question of adult responsibility.
Isn’t part of the decision to pull / close a consulate the Ambassador’s responsibility? I mean, isn’t the Ambassador in charge of our relations to the country in question?
So it’s the dead man’s fault? He was too stupid to get out of the rain?
So you are the president, or Sec of State (either one – both are culpable), and your man on the ground is begging for reinforcements for months (no matter how many), and the wall is blown up and and IED is thrown over the wall and Facebook has pictures of the Amb. jogging with admonitions to kill him and the route taken…..and LT. Col. Wood is telling you to NOT remove the 30 man Special Forces team,……
and your response is to deny reinforcements, and keep the Amb there? Even if the Amb gamely chooses to stay on? Is that what you’re saying? That you cannot override the Amb as Prez? That you cannot think for yourself?
And NO the Amb is NOT “in charge” of our relations with the country in question. The Prez/State is in charge.
So, they’re not incompetent at assessing security issues, they’re incompetent at hiring people that can assess security issues.
Thank you for admitting they’re incompetent.
Breaking News (from Fox):
Hillary Clinton just said she takes full responsibility for the entire affair….the buck stops with her, she said.
I’m glad she finally admitted it, but its too little, too late, as the nation is long since past worrying about the Monica Lewisnky scandal.
Yet we were told on this very blog that Clinton wouldn’t let herself be thrown under the bus by Obama. Well, I guess this is partially true – she jumped under the bus. 😉
I must have missed the part where she tendered her resignation.
She’s still on the bus.
This is all about getting past Nov. 6th. Just one more stall tactic.
I’ll give her credit for at least saying she’s responsible (it’s more than Obama can say), but she then says, “The decision about security aspects are made by security professionals.” She’s responsible, but she didn’t make the decision, someone else did that…
Still, her taking responsibility doesn’t explain the lie about the spontaneous protest, when evidence suggest ample advance knowledge of a planned attack.
She can say it because it costs her nothing — on the contrary, she may very well keep her job by not costing Obama the election.
Or she might’ve just played a good hand. Now that she’s “taken responsibility” the White House can’t deflect questions by babbling vague things about the State Department and Intellgence community, because someone has stepped forward – who they can’t even indirectly blame with alienating every single Hillary suporter from 2008, nor can they try to drag her down in the morass with them because she’s just climbed out of the swamp.
Even the press knows that the White House doesn’t get it’s intelligence from the State Department, so her buck stopping doesn’t cover for a White House where both Obama and Biden were also pushing the spontaneous demonstration lie.
We have to see how this plays out, but Bill was called Slick Willy for a very good reason.
I’m thinking she didn’t get thrown under the bus, she jumped out the back emergency exit as it approached the cliff.
http://twitter.com/cosmos4u/status/258023965879066626
By the way, I’m following that guy for a reason. Some very big astronomy news is about to break. Nothing can replace human lives, but the news might put this political squabbling into perspective.
From Huffpo,
He can’t blame State because Hillary stood up to accept responsibility, responsibility which is unquestionably his.
As Drew at Ace of Space said, “What Hillary has done is basically say, “the damn phone is ringing and President Creased Trousers isn’t answering it so give it to me.'”
Hillary can not take away Obama’s responsibility.
Indeed.
Chris wrote:
“What I am saying is that the only level of security that could handle an attack by 100+ people armed with heavy weapons is a firebase, not a consulate and probably not an embassy. ”
And what you are saying is pure dreck.
You either defend your people or you get them out of there (or never send them there in the first place). It does not matter one whit the size of the place – whether consulate, embassy or choom parlor.
You don’t say things like “Well it’s only a consulate – the score card says they get 3 soldiers.
You send WHAT IT TAKES. Or, again, you get your people out.
Your argument that since it’s a consulate or even Embassy and therefore not worth the 100+ people it would take to defend it (your number not mine) demonstrates an astonishing lack of humanity.
You are saying “Let them die – the official instructions say only 3 people allotted for defense.”
I never said “let them die.” I said:
1) Obviously the people on the ground were not expecting the size of attack that occurred – they only requested 5 people, not the reinforced platoon they would have needed to hold.
2) Also obviously, the Ambassador did not think the threat was as high as it was, or he would have closed it and/or not visited the place.
3) Here’s where we agree – if you really need a reinforced platoon to hold the position, you shouldn’t be there. Where we disagree is that the people on the ground did not request a reinforced platoon. They requested two more guards. In short, our local experts in Benghazi were taken by surprise.
“1) Obviously the people on the ground were not expecting the size of attack that occurred – they only requested 5 people, not the reinforced platoon they would have needed to hold.”
Obvious? How do you know? a 40 foot hole was blasted into the wall…IED’s were thrown over the wall.
Secondly, all you can think about is “holding”. You cannot hold a place like that if enough militants attack.
But what you CAN do is have enough boots so that you can work an effective withdraw. People were gunned down as soon as they jumped out of the window. You don’t try to hold. You execute a fighting withdrawal. Lt. Col. Wood commanded a 30 man Special Torces team through August and fought it’s withdrawal to no avail. Try to imagine what could have happened if they had that 30 man team plus the DC-3’s they requested.
They would have had a better chance.
Thirdly the ambassador DIRECTLY REQUESTED reinforcements over a period of months. You personally have no idea what calculation the ambassador used to arrive at the number he asked for, nor what his goals were.
but let’s just suppose the ambassador was a moron and asked for too few men:
even THOSE were denied.
How can you use that as some sort of excuse for O and H?
And they were not taken by surprise. One of the 4 guys (the gamer – the ambassador’s aide) texted he was really worried about surviving the night before things popped.
Obama and Clinton screwed this up; Both of them lied through their teeth to us; those 4 men died for nothing….they didn’t have to die.
Hillary’s saying she takes responsibility does not absolve Obama from anything.
the gamer … texted he was really worried about surviving the night before things popped
That gave me chills. Superb point.
Chris wrote:
“What I am saying is that consulates by their very function are NOT military firebases, and WILL not be able to handle this level of attack.”
Then when you get intel saying there could be real trouble….when the on-site guy has been asking for reinforcements for months………….
what do you do?