The Benghazi conundrum

Memnoch

I understand why Americans are so upset about what happened at Benghazi. Though I think it would behove them to show a tenth of concern for lives lost around the world as a result of their actions and decisions as they lament with increasing vociferousness every single American loss, I understand why this is so.

What has left me more than a little puzzled is the reaction of the American right to the so called handling of the affair.

There seems to be some kind of theory of a cover-up. Of minimisation and even incompetence at various levels.

I've ready article after article on the issue and after all of it, I remain at a loss to understand what the point of it all is.

Precisely what is the Obama administration accused of doing and why? What they have to gain by pretending it wasn't not a terrorist attack? Is this more of the appeasement of the Jihadists that we hear so much about?

I'm using to seeing the conservative movement get very, very angry, over very, very little. What exactly is it that Obama and his people did this time that they are so angry about?

InTheTrees

I think whats at play here is the "Republican Bubble".

In the week before the election, Fox News in particular and then the rest of the right wing media, attempted to use the Libya attack as the "October Surprise" that would destroy Obama.

In the past they had much more power and could promote/invent these issues that would catch like wildfire and usually cause opinion to change.

But with the course of time the various biases are well known so Republican Right Wing News tends to stay with the Republican Right Wing, and yet they still puff up different issues so the result is this news "bubble" amongst republicans where they have whole news stories and issues that are unknown outside their circle. This is one of them. There's very little to the story and its not getting any traction outside Fox News.

SO they attempted to use Libya as a gotcha right before the election but its a non-issue and now they're kind of stuck with it, especially since the UN ambassador may take over from Hillary, so they're looking as foolish, petty and out-of-touch as ever.

AbusesToilets

The issue and potential scandal is that when the attack occurred, a very specific chain of messages were sent up directly to the highest levels. There were reportedly units on stand-by to intervene within range (based out of Italy) that could have responded in time to save the lives of those embassy personnel killed. This of course would have led to the deaths of many Libyans. So the scuttlebutt is that these units were told to stand down.
If this is true then it is a serious issue and failure for the administration. The Republicans of course are looking to use it their political advantage; however that shouldn't take away from the very real issue that may be at heart here.

Memnoch

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The issue and potential scandal is that when the attack occurred, a very specific chain of messages were sent up directly to the highest levels. There were reportedly units on stand-by to intervene within range (based out of Italy) that could have responded in time to save the lives of those embassy personnel killed. This of course would have led to the deaths of many Libyans. So the scuttlebutt is that these units were told to stand down.
If this is true then it is a serious issue and failure for the administration. The Republicans of course are looking to use it their political advantage; however that shouldn't take away from the very real issue that may be at heart here.

This seems very much like after the fact armchair generaling. I haven't seen any evidence to support the idea that once the embassy was under ATTACK there was enough time for people to get from Italy to Libya in time to stop what happened.

Were there not protests going on all over the middle east and elsewhere? Any of these could have been a potential flash point for a potential attack.

I'm going to have to agree with the poster above, this is another of those made up stories that doesn't seem to have any real basis in fact.

InTheTrees

And one of the parties in the General Patraeus scandal apparently revealed classified info that she shouldnt even have known. (There could have been "prisoners" of some kind being held in the compound that the attack was designed to free).

There's undoubtedly questions that need to be answered but Republican efforts to make this into a "scandal" is really diminishing its importance.

Manic Moran

I understand that the bigger deal isn't the response time to the attack (I can honestly accept 15 hours. People have no idea the resistance there is to giving US soldiers ammunition), but instead it was the leadup. The security force in Benghazi was drawn-down in the period prior, and there were very pointed warnings and concerns sent from the mission to DC saying 'Guys, things are likely to get nasty here, and we're worried'. There seems to have been no action taken by State Dept as a result.

Carcharodon

Its a joke how the media are able to make this into something it clearly is not and scary how large sections of the population buy into this and convince themselves that they really care about it but the sad fact is that these people crying out about what happened, could not care less about the actual events but are more interested in how they can attack the administration, a convenient story they can latch onto.

Its great to read all the armchair generals here on boards and in the media, like anyone really has a clue, pathetic.

Memnoch

Well according to Patraeus they knew that it was a terrorist attack straight away (how could they not, even I knew it just from the initial reports), but that the Al Queda link was removed from the declassified material given to Susan Rice.

The suggestion is that this was for operational/national security reasons. Which doesn't surprise me. Why would you let the enemy know how much information you have?

That's what it felt to me at the time, that the US government obviously knew what had really happened but had decided to not release the full info publicly yet, maybe because they had operations going on to try and catch the people responsible and wanted to try and let them get overconfident.

For the republicans to play politics of it was quite low, but predictable given their desperation to beat Obama.

InTheTrees

This is also about republicans wanting to block Susan Rice's nomination as Hillary's replacement as Sec of State.

John Mccain is looking like an out-of-touch moron again.

Memnoch

So the Republicans continue to double down on their pointless Benghazi crusade. NID James Clapper's spokesman releases information that should really put the nail in the coffin on this issue:

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/19/official-changes-to-benghazi-talking-points-made-by-intel-community/?hpt=hp_t2

"First, the information about individuals linked to al Qaeda was derived from classified sources," the official said. "Second, when links were so tenuous - as they still are - it makes sense to be cautious before pointing fingers so you don't set off a chain of circular and self-reinforcing assumptions. Third, it is important to be careful not to prejudice a criminal investigation in its early stages."

"The intelligence community made substantive, analytical changes before the talking points were sent to government agency partners for their feedback," Turner said, referring to the White House, Justice Department, State Department, Pentagon and FBI. "There were no substantive changes made to the talking points after they left the intelligence community," he said.

The republicans continue to nitpick like fools over something that really should have been a non-story for the beginning and should never have attempted to be politicised in this manner to begin with.

AbusesToilets

Memnoch wrote: »

This seems very much like after the fact armchair generaling. I haven't seen any evidence to support the idea that once the embassy was under ATTACK there was enough time for people to get from Italy to Libya in time to stop what happened.

Were there not protests going on all over the middle east and elsewhere? Any of these could have been a potential flash point for a potential attack.

I'm going to have to agree with the poster above, this is another of those made up stories that doesn't seem to have any real basis in fact.

The response teams were staged in Italy, within a flight time of around an hour to reach Libya. They would have been capable of intervening in the attack prior to the ambassador and other embassy workers being killed. They would have known immediately when the embassy came under attack. The security personnel on the ground asked repeatedly for assistance over a course of a number of hours, which was denied.
The failure of the State Department and the President to pay attention to the warnings prior to the attack and their failure and refusal to respond during the attack is a serious issue. This isn't about the Republicans scoring one over the President and the Democrats, it's a fundamental violation of the trust between the government and the people it sends out into harms way.

Manic Moran

Memnoch wrote: »

So the Republicans continue to double down on their pointless Benghazi crusade. NID James Clapper's spokesman releases information that should really put the nail in the coffin on this issue:

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/19/official-changes-to-benghazi-talking-points-made-by-intel-community/?hpt=hp_t2



The republicans continue to nitpick like fools over something that really should have been a non-story for the beginning and should never have attempted to be politicised in this manner to begin with.

That article doesn't even address the major points at issue. Whether or not anyone blamed AQ publicly after the event in the press release (and the CIA rationale for it is reasonable) is somewhat incidental to the event itself.

Manic Moran

Memnoch wrote: »

So the Republicans continue to double down on their pointless Benghazi crusade. NID James Clapper's spokesman releases information that should really put the nail in the coffin on this issue:

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/19/official-changes-to-benghazi-talking-points-made-by-intel-community/?hpt=hp_t2



The republicans continue to nitpick like fools over something that really should have been a non-story for the beginning and should never have attempted to be politicised in this manner to begin with.

That article doesn't even address the major points at issue. Whether or not anyone blamed AQ publicly after the event in the press release (and the CIA rationale for it is reasonable) is somewhat incidental to the event itself.

Duck Soup

The issue on Benghazi - and it remains to be seen if it's actually there or not - is did the consulate request greater security and (a) was it declined, (b) by who and (c) would it have made any difference given the ferocity of the onslaught.

Unfortunately many Republicans have decided to go a different route, trying to catch the administration lying on what they knew at any given time. Time and time again, it appears that the administration repeated what they were told by intelligence services. There's nothing to see there.

So why would - for example - the likes of McCain go after Susan Rice on a non-story and ignore a more substantive one? Because in all likelihood, the buck would probably stop with either a low-ranking official/civil servant for a failure to increase security.

McCain and his fellow travellers are looking for scalps, not answers.

Mjollnir

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The response teams were staged in Italy, within a flight time of around an hour to reach Libya. They would have been capable of intervening in the attack prior to the ambassador and other embassy workers being killed. They would have known immediately when the embassy came under attack. The security personnel on the ground asked repeatedly for assistance over a course of a number of hours, which was denied.
The failure of the State Department and the President to pay attention to the warnings prior to the attack and their failure and refusal to respond during the attack is a serious issue. This isn't about the Republicans scoring one over the President and the Democrats, it's a fundamental violation of the trust between the government and the people it sends out into harms way.

Oh, if it were only so talking points simple.

SO, how does one gin up a mission?
What are the ROE?
What aircraft, who sets up security for the platoons sent in?
Do you need two aircraft in case one is damaged or destroyed in flight?
What about communication?
What about what happens when they're on the ground?
Air assets, contingency, maps, mission objective?
What about exfilitration?

And, no, it's not like they were an hour away. Italy IS one hour away but Aviano is at the furthest northeast side of the country.
And again: what about communication, who are the friendlies, who are the bad guys, what do they shoot at?

When faced with real world details, these pie-in-the-sky 'what if/why didn't they' scenarios fall apart really quickly.

AbusesToilets

The units were staged at Sigonella, on stand-by, ready to go, from what I have read. They would have aircraft capable of penetrating Libyan airspace, a variant of the MC-130. The plan would likely have followed the already established plans for an embassy evacuation. These are mandated for every embassy and the unit would be familiar with the details. Comms would be standard to their SOP. As for the ROE, I don't know, but I imagine however the operation was executed, that there would be dead Libyans at the end of it. I don't know the ins and outs of the plans for such a mission but I think a likely extraction would be by rotary wing to the carrier group in the Med, 5th fleet I think.
This would be far from a pie in the sky mission. It is a very specific mission that these units train for constantly and are very proficient at.

Memnoch

I'm just wondering where the evidence is that someone high up enough knew about the attack in time to actually dispatch someone and that they made the decision not to. I.E. that they turned some kind of request down? This just sounds like another conspiracy theory so far.

AbusesToilets

Memnoch wrote: »

I'm just wondering where the evidence is that someone high up enough knew about the attack in time to actually dispatch someone and that they made the decision not to. I.E. that they turned some kind of request down? This just sounds like another conspiracy theory so far.

There are specific mechanisms in place that are triggered in such circumstances. An attack on the embassy occurs, priority messages are sent straight to the White House. It's not like an email or a phone call, they had to know, right away.

Memnoch

AbusesToilets wrote: »

There are specific mechanisms in place that are triggered in such circumstances. An attack on the embassy occurs, priority messages are sent straight to the White House. It's not like an email or a phone call, they had to know, right away.

So you have no idea what ACTUALLY happened your simply speculating wildly based on what you THINK SHOULD have happened. I forgot. Is Bush responsible for 9/11 then?

Because it's just as stupid to blame the Obama administration for this terrorist attack. You need to stop grasping for such flimsy straws. Come back when you have some concrete evidence of wrongdoing.

AbusesToilets

Memnoch wrote: »

So you have no idea what ACTUALLY happened your simply speculating wildly based on what you THINK SHOULD have happened. I forgot. Is Bush responsible for 9/11 then?

Because it's just as stupid to blame the Obama administration for this terrorist attack. You need to stop grasping for such flimsy straws. Come back when you have some concrete evidence of wrongdoing.

Not quite sure how you come to that conclusion from what I have written. I have said that this needs to be investigated, because there are precise mechanisms in place to respond to events like this one, which were not followed through on. So, logically the question is why not and what were the reasons for that?

There's no blaming the Obama administration for the attack. There is, however, serious issues with how they addressed warnings of danger beforehand and their responses once the attack occurred. This is what needs to be investigated and people held accountable for. No more than with the intelligence failures for the 9/11 attacks since you mention it. This isn't about scoring political points for your chosen side, the questions would be the same were it a Republican administration in power.

Memnoch

Well it seems like the only people who are pushing this thing are the Republican congress and a certain slice of the news media.

Also, I would be more understanding if all they were saying was basically what you have said in your post above. But most of what I've seen amounts to 'Obama didn't use the word terrorist attack,' (Romney even brought it up in the presidential debates) and 'Rice tried to mislead us,' and so on and so forth.

So what you're saying here isn't something I have a problem with per se and it doesn't really address the issue of GOP ire, which seems to be far more rooted in sensationalism and political point scoring than anything else.

AbusesToilets

Memnoch wrote: »

Well it seems like the only people who are pushing this thing are the Republican congress and a certain slice of the news media.

Also, I would be more understanding if all they were saying was basically what you have said in your post above. But most of what I've seen amounts to 'Obama didn't use the word terrorist attack,' (Romney even brought it up in the presidential debates) and 'Rice tried to mislead us,' and so on and so forth.

So what you're saying here isn't something I have a problem with per se and it doesn't really address the issue of GOP ire, which seems to be far more rooted in sensationalism and political point scoring than anything else.

Well the GOP seem content to continue their policies of obstruction and refusal to actually govern. That will unfortunately likely preclude any chance of finding out what happened.

InTheTrees

Sorry but I'm still not buying any of this.

As far as I know, this whole issue was puffed up before the election as a Fox News generated "October surprise".

They had no real October Surprise (A semi mythical US media phenom when the leading candidate gets hit with a scandal right before the election), so they made one up, and assumed republicans would jump on board. This is the way they always work and its worked for them so many times in the past, make up a story and then push it and push it until nobody can tell whats true and what isnt but the overall negativity remains. (A majority still think iraq had wmd's).

But times are changing. Fox ratings are down. MSNBC and CNN together now rate higher than FOX. Wihness the Fox news fiasco of its election coverage. SO nobody really believed the sh*t they were pedalling.

Except john Mccain and lindsay graham, who jumped like they always jump when fox news calls. And they now find themselves supporting a nonsense issue after the election has long ended.

Politically they had(were given) a chance to wriggle out with these secret hearings but they didnt take the opportunity instead deciding to prolong the issue, hoping they could rekindle their relevance by claiming they're even more confused after the hearings than they were before. Which is just another sign of how out of touch they are.

They should have taken the exit that was presented to them.

Manic Moran

InTheTrees wrote: »

Sorry but I'm still not buying any of this.

As far as I know, this whole issue was puffed up before the election as a Fox News generated "October surprise".

That's a little excessive. Though doubtless the Republicans are pushing for political gain, certain fundamental facts are not puffed up by Fox News. The questions of security policy prior to the attack, reactions to the warnings, and the timeline of events after the attack are certainly worth asking. 19 hours to get boots on the ground, or 50 minutes just to get Sec Def informed that the attack was even happening may not have been anyone's fault in the end, but the whole sequence of events seems to be such that an investigation should be held

Duck Soup

Manic Moran wrote: »

That's a little excessive. Though doubtless the Republicans are pushing for political gain, certain fundamental facts are not puffed up by Fox News. The questions of security policy prior to the attack, reactions to the warnings, and the timeline of events after the attack are certainly worth asking. 19 hours to get boots on the ground, or 50 minutes just to get Sec Def informed that the attack was even happening may not have been anyone's fault in the end, but the whole sequence of events seems to be such that an investigation should be held

Yes, but even Democrats acknowledge that there should be a thorough investigation into the facts of the attack and the aftermath. And, as far as I know, this is being done through the House Intelligence Committee, which called up [now former] CIA Director David Petraeus as part of their hearings. When there are four dead Americans, including an ambassador, questions need to be asked and answered.

What is being puffed up on Fox News is a completely different matter. They are giving endless airtime to people such as John McCain, Susan Collins and Kelly Ayotte to pursue a cover-up story that even those on the right are starting to admit doesn't exist.

McCain in particular is descending into farce. He's asking rhetorical questions on Fox that have already been answered. Who took out the references in Susan Rice's talking points to Al Qaeda [the intelligence services] and why [security and legal reasons]? McCain seems to have to decided to charge into battle to secure a victory for truthiness and now has no elegant way to back out of it having been proved wrong.

Like I said, there are some people in the Republican party who are more interested in scalps than answers. What I don't understand is that there is more likely to be a much more substantive story to be told out of the timeline of events and possible failures in security strategies and decisions, so why are senior Republican senators heading in a completely different direction?

Because the responsibility for a lack of security is likely to end up at the door of a faceless civil servant or a mid-ranking administration official? Or because it was partly caused by a Republican refusal to raise the budget for embassies and the diplomatic corp?

I wish I knew. Their present tilting at windmills when there are real questions to be asked makes no sense.

InTheTrees

Manic Moran wrote: »

That's a little excessive. Though doubtless the Republicans are pushing for political gain, certain fundamental facts are not puffed up by Fox News.

Wasnt it Hannity who is/was pushing the story that Obama was watching the whole thing going on as it happened by satellite feed in the white house and decided to do nothing?

Admittedly I'm getting my info from The Daily Show, but there's no denying the fox news campaign to manufacture a scandal before the election. They really thought benghazi was going to bring Obama down.

And poor old mccain has hitched his broken down old wagon to it. Of course he was the guy who picked sarah palin as his vice presidential candidate.

There's no doubt there will be many investigations. Every agency with any interest will want to know how to stop this from happening again. An embassy was overrun and staff killed after all.

Brian?

Manic Moran wrote: »

That's a little excessive. Though doubtless the Republicans are pushing for political gain, certain fundamental facts are not puffed up by Fox News. The questions of security policy prior to the attack, reactions to the warnings, and the timeline of events after the attack are certainly worth asking. 19 hours to get boots on the ground, or 50 minutes just to get Sec Def informed that the attack was even happening may not have been anyone's fault in the end, but the whole sequence of events seems to be such that an investigation should be held

You're 100% correct, an investigation is needed and if mistakes were made in the chain of command people need to pay with their jobs.

However this does not mean Fox or the GOP have carte blanche to blacken peoples names before any investigation is conducted.

How dare McCain accuse Susan Rice of lying to the American people when he actually has no idea what happened yet. I have a huge amount of respect for McCain normally but to say she is disqualified from the job as Secretary of State because she is misinformed is completely hypocritical.

InTheTrees

Its all just political maneuvering. And its heartening to see the Democrats playing the game in the same way that the R's have done for years now.

Democrats have John Kerry waiting in the wings to be nominated as Sec of State if repubs win this skirmish against Rice. It could be one of the reasons this fight hasnt really spread beyond this core of old republicans.

SO either way R's will get someone who pisses them off.

Amerika

Hearings on Benghazi attack on the anniversary of 9/11 in 2012 are about to begin.

Three veteran state department whistleblowers, with direct connection to the event, will testify. And it seems the Obama administration, and apparently some of their media allies, are already launching a smear campaign against them.

Anyone interested in the hearings should read the House Republicans' interim report. Shocking to see how screwed up the whole thing was.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2013/05/02/house-gop-interim-progress-report-on-benghazi-attack/

Preliminary it looks to me that the administration botched the whole thing, and lied about the al-Qaeda attack on the embassy because it was shortly before the election.

And the media should be ashamed in their lack of journalistic integrity in their duties at the time. Does anybody think they will act any differently during the hearings?

Even if President Obama and Hillary Clinton are determined to have full accountability in the lapses in judgement and lies on the matter, I’ll wager they will get off unscathed for the most part. Alas, if only they were republicans!

Overheal

I've avoided the media more and more since the Treyvon Martin case, and almost entirely now since Sandy Hook. The media hasn't had integrity for a long time now. They will spin any story they want in any manner they desire with as few facts as they please. "Some people say ____" "Well what if this" "What if that" "Maybe the president just ignored them" "What if Hillary told them not to do anything" - and you can get away with that crap on television. I havent heard much actual reporting about what actually happened, just what a bunch of pundits wish happened.

To date, there have been 9 Benghazi hearings, and as a result no damning evidence has been revealed. The attack killed 4 people.

During the Bush administration, there were 54 attacks on diplomatic targets, that killed 13 Americans, yet garnered only 3 hearings on embassy security, and zero outrage on Fox.

FatherTed

It's as simple as partisan politics. These hearings investigating a manufactured controversy are a waste of time and money and are being exploited for political purposes.