consulate in Benghazi

[billc]

From a freinds post on facebook, I don't know if he got it somewhere else...

Obama called the SEALs and they got Osama bin Laden.
When the SEALs called Obama THEY GOT DENIED.

 

[CanuckMA]

Not to nitpick, but they were ex-SEALS. Private contractors.

 

[billc]

I don't think there is ever an "ex" to being a seal...just saying...

 

[Tgace]

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I liked this - it's actually from Chicago, too:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/..._1_benghazi-october-surprise-mainstream-media

Benghazi: No mere 'October surprise'
October 31, 2012|Jonah Goldberg
If you want to understand why conservatives have lost faith in the so-called mainstream media, you need to ponder the question: Where is the Benghazi feeding frenzy?

Unlike some of my colleagues on the right, I don't think there's a conspiracy at work. Rather, I think journalists tend to act on their instincts (some even brag about this; you could look it up). And, collectively, the mainstream media's instincts run liberal, making groupthink inevitable.

In 2000, a Democratic operative orchestrated an "October surprise" attack on George W. Bush, revealing that 24 years earlier, he'd been arrested for drunk driving. The media went into a feeding frenzy.

"Is all the 24-hour coverage of Bush's 24-year-old DUI arrest the product of a liberal media almost drunk on the idea of sinking him, or is it a legitimate, indeed unavoidable news story?" asked Howard Kurtz in a segment for his CNN show "Reliable Sources."

The consensus among the guests: It wasn't a legitimate news story. But the media kept going with it.

One could go on and on. In September 2004, former CBS titan Dan Rather gambled his entire career on a story about Bush's service in the National Guard. His instincts were so powerful, he didn't thoroughly check the documents he relied on, which were forgeries.

In 2008, the media feeding frenzy over John McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin, was so ludicrous it belonged in a Tom Wolfe novel.

Over the last couple of years, the mainstream media have generally treated Occupy Wall Street as idealistic, the "tea parties" as racist and terrifying.

To be sure, there have been conservative feeding frenzies: about Barack Obama's pastor, John Kerry's embellishments of his war record, etc. But the mainstream media usually have tasked themselves with the duty of debunking and dispelling such "hysteria."

...

If true, the White House's concerted effort to blame the attack on a video crumbles, as do several other fraudulent claims. Yet, last Friday, the president boasted that "the minute I found out what was happening" in Benghazi, he ordered that everything possible be done to protect our personnel.

That is either untrue, or he's being disobeyed on grave matters.

This isn't an "October surprise" foisted on the media by opposition research; it's news.

...

I am willing to believe that journalists like Gregory are sincere in their desire to play it straight. But among those who don't share his instincts, it's hard to distinguish between conspiracy and groupthink. Indeed, it's hard to think why one should even bother trying to make that distinction at all.

This dovetails with my thinking. Most MSM are liberal in their personal beliefs; this affects their reportage, IMHO. But that doesn't mean there is a 'conspiracy'. It's more as described above; groupthink. I get that. But I also get that the author points out that for many conservatives, it's a distinction without a difference.

And the conclusion the author makes is valid; this is news. Report it as news, investigate it as news.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

This may tie in with the video posted above, don't know, can't watch it right now.

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-th...-attacks-smoking-gun-warning-why-didnt-obama-

Uncovered classified cable could be Benghazi attack's 'smoking gun warning' - why didn't Obama save four Americans?
Published October 31, 2012 | On the Record | On the Record
Special Guests: Fox News Correspondent Catherine Herridge, Rep. Jason Chaffetz
This is a rush transcript from "On the Record," October 31, 2012. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS HOST: Disturbing new information about Benghazi and the Obama administration. Fox News obtained a classified cable sent in August from the U.S. mission in Benghazi to the State Department in Washington. The cable, coming just weeks before the attack, warned the Benghazi consulate could not sustain a coordinated attack.

But that is not all that was in that cable. Fox News chief intelligence correspondent Catherine Herridge, who has read that cable, is here with the latest -- Catherine.

CATHERINE HERRIDGE, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Well, the status of the cable is that I really believe, having read it, that it is the smoking gun warning here. You've got this emergency meeting in Benghazi less than a month before the attack. At that briefing, the people are told that there are 10 -- 10 -- Islamist militias and al Qaeda groups in Benghazi.

The consulate cannot sustain a coordinated attack and that they need extra help. And this information goes directly to the office of the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton. So again, you're got the culpability of the State Department. This is a very specific warning that they are in trouble, they need help and they see an attack on the horizon.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right, what's the date on this cable?

HERRIDGE: It's the 16th of August.

VAN SUSTEREN: Is there any response or any indication that there's been any direct response to that cable between the 16th of August and the 11th of September?

HERRIDGE: I don't know what the classified traffic was between the 16th and the 11th, but I asked the State Department today specifically, given the warnings and how detailed they were and the intelligence that al Qaeda and these militias were operating in Benghazi, was any extra security considered or put in place in light of the 9/11 anniversary? You're three weeks out. I think that's the critical question.

And the State Department said to me today they wouldn't comment because it's classified. And they are also waiting for the outcome of this investigation.

VAN SUSTEREN: Who was the signatory to the cable?

HERRIDGE: Ambassador Stevens.

If this cable is not a forgery, this is a very, very, bad thing.

 

[Makalakumu]

My next favorite conspiracy theory is that Obama, ordered the government to strengthen Hurricane Sandy with HAARP and steer it into the most populated section of the East Coast in order to knock the consulate story out of the news feeds. Obama had to do this because the attack was a botched kidnapping where Obama was going to negotiate for the release of the ambassador, but ended up getting him killed instead.

 

[CanuckMA]

I don't think there is ever an "ex" to being a seal...just saying...

You are no longer part of the military. You are an 'ex'.

Those guys were working for a civilian contractor. They were 'ex'.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

My next favorite conspiracy theory is that Obama, ordered the government to strengthen Hurricane Sandy with HAARP and steer it into the most populated section of the East Coast in order to knock the consulate story out of the news feeds. Obama had to do this because the attack was a botched kidnapping where Obama was going to negotiate for the release of the ambassador, but ended up getting him killed instead.

Laugh all you like, but I'm kind of surprised you're not latching onto this yourself, you're the big conspiracy-believer around here.

And if you want one that is at least semi-plausible, try this... The consulate in Benghazi was working with local Libyan militia groups, including those linked to Al-Qaida either loosely or directly, to repurchase firearms and heavy weapons that had been stolen or looted from various Libyan armories after the fall of Khadaffi. These weapons, purchased with State Department funds, were then sent via various routes to the rebel forces in Syria, whom we wish to assist, but not be shown to be sending military arms to. These rebels in Syria are also at least partially affiliated with A-Q.

Some or all of the above is true, and even (the gun buyback part) admitted by the State Department. What is speculated is that the weapons were going to Syria after that. The 'conspiracy' part is that the reason why the consulate team was left to die was to avoid blowing the whistle on what was clearly a very Colonel Oliver North type deal gone south. Only this time, instead of having a NSA and former US Marine officer to take the fall, the buck would go all the way to the Secretary of State and possibly to the White House.

How's that for a conspiracy theory? I am not subscribing to it, but it as at least based partially on fact and sounds semi-plausible.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

You are no longer part of the military. You are an 'ex'.

Those guys were working for a civilian contractor. They were 'ex'.

I think he's referring to how they seem themselves, not their official capacity. US Marines consider themselves US Marines forever, no matter how long ago they served. Even the Commandant of the Marine Corps issued a directive stating that US Marines were not to be referred to as 'ex' Marines or 'former' Marines for any reason. If they serve honorably, they are always "Marines," period. I suppose SEALS feel the same way. But technically, yes, you are right, they were no longer working for the DoD/US Navy. As far as we know. Transfers sometimes happen between the military and the CIA.

 

[Makalakumu]

Laugh all you like, but I'm kind of surprised you're not latching onto this yourself, you're the big conspiracy-believer around here.

And if you want one that is at least semi-plausible, try this... The consulate in Benghazi was working with local Libyan militia groups, including those linked to Al-Qaida either loosely or directly, to repurchase firearms and heavy weapons that had been stolen or looted from various Libyan armories after the fall of Khadaffi. These weapons, purchased with State Department funds, were then sent via various routes to the rebel forces in Syria, whom we wish to assist, but not be shown to be sending military arms to. These rebels in Syria are also at least partially affiliated with A-Q.

Some or all of the above is true, and even (the gun buyback part) admitted by the State Department. What is speculated is that the weapons were going to Syria after that. The 'conspiracy' part is that the reason why the consulate team was left to die was to avoid blowing the whistle on what was clearly a very Colonel Oliver North type deal gone south. Only this time, instead of having a NSA and former US Marine officer to take the fall, the buck would go all the way to the Secretary of State and possibly to the White House.

How's that for a conspiracy theory? I am not subscribing to it, but it as at least based partially on fact and sounds semi-plausible.

That sounds plausible and I have seen others put it forth as an explanation. The clandestine support of AQ groups in Libya and Syria is another sleeping bombshell.

The only problem is that this bombshell isn't limited to just the Obama administration. The US government has been supporting AQ groups for over thirty years. Osama Bin Laden's CIA alias was Tim Osman. They flew him to the US in 1986 and began coordinating what we later call AQ.

Now that is what I call blowback.

 

[Tgace]

You are no longer part of the military. You are an 'ex'.

Those guys were working for a civilian contractor. They were 'ex'.

So who really cares if they died right?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/11/the-benghazi-drip-drip-drip/

Nov 1, 2012 4:29pm
The Benghazi Drip-Drip-Drip
As of now, the White House has disclosed that President Obama was informed about the attack on the diplomatic outpost in Benghazi at roughly 5pm by his National Security Adviser Tom Donilon as he was in a pre-scheduled meeting with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey.
...
The White House has felt the necessity to pop its head up to shoot down stories it says are false.
For instance, Tommy Vietor, the spokesman for the National Security Council, has said that despite some claims, there was no real-time video of the attack being watched in the Situation Room.
...
The Washington Post’s respected foreign policy columnist David Ignatius just yesterday posed “Lingering Questions about Benghazi.” One of them, pointedly, was “At a time when al-Qaeda was strengthening its presence in Libya and across North Africa, why didn’t the United States have more military hardware nearby?”
...
ABC News broke some stories on this, ranging from a security team being denied continued use of an airplane its commander wanted to keep in country to better do his job; to the security team leaving Libya before Ambassador Stevens wanted it to.
Fox News Channel’s Catherine Herridge last night reported on a newly discovered cable indicating that in August, less than a month before the attack, the diplomatic post in Benghazi convened an “emergency meeting” concerned about local Al Qaeda training camps. Said the cable: “RSO (Regional Security Officer) expressed concerns with the ability to defend Post in the event of a coordinated attack due to limited manpower, security measures, weapons capabilities, host nation support, and the overall size of the compound.”
The cable stated that “In light of the uncertain security environment, US Mission Benghazi will submit specific requests to US Embassy Tripoli for additional physical security upgrades and staffing needs by separate cover.”
The State Department’s comment to Fox: “An independent board is conducting a thorough review of the assault on our post in Benghazi. Once we have the board’s comprehensive account of what happened, findings and recommendations, we can fully address these matters.”
...
This afternoon, journalists Harald Doornbos and Jenan Moussa in Foreign Policy Magazine reported that when they arrived at the compound in Benghazi on October 26 they found “several ash-strewn documents beneath rubble in the looted Tactical Operations Center, one of the four main buildings of the partially destroyed compound. Some of the documents — such as an email from Stevens to his political officer in Benghazi and a flight itinerary sent to Sean Smith, a U.S. diplomat slain in the attack — are clearly marked as State Department correspondence. Others are unsigned printouts of messages to local and national Libyan authorities. The two unsigned draft letters are both dated Sept. 11 and express strong fears about the security situation at the compound on what would turn out to be a tragic day. They also indicate that Stevens and his team had officially requested additional security at the Benghazi compound for his visit — and that they apparently did not feel it was being provided.”
...
A Sept. 11 missive to the head of the Libyan Ministry of Foreign Affairs notes that on that morning, “one of our diligent guards made a troubling report. Near our main gate, a member of the police force was seen in the upper level of a building across from our compound. It is reported that this person was photographing the inside of the U.S. special mission and furthermore that this person was part of the police unit sent to protect the mission. The police car stationed where this event occurred was number 322.”

Seriously, are there any doubts that something REALLY BAD happened?

Even if there were no lies, no denial of military assets on the day of the attack, it's pretty clear that the Ambassador himself wanted more security, ASKED for more security in the weeks leading up the attack, and didn't get it.

In the best possible situation for the White House, they failed utterly to understand the nature of the security situation and to provide for it for American citizens and employees of the government. That's even if no actual criminal negligence was involved. That's the BEST possible reading of this fiasco.

But the continued foot-dragging and obfuscation on the part of the White House just makes it look bad, bad, bad. Even if it's not as bad as some claim, it's bad. And dragging feet and lying are NOT going to help.

 

[Tgace]

 

[CanuckMA]

I think he's referring to how they seem themselves, not their official capacity. US Marines consider themselves US Marines forever, no matter how long ago they served. Even the Commandant of the Marine Corps issued a directive stating that US Marines were not to be referred to as 'ex' Marines or 'former' Marines for any reason. If they serve honorably, they are always "Marines," period. I suppose SEALS feel the same way. But technically, yes, you are right, they were no longer working for the DoD/US Navy. As far as we know. Transfers sometimes happen between the military and the CIA.

I'm sure that's what he meant. But they are often reffered as SEALs, implying active duty. They are to be commended for what they did, but as far as them interacting with the chain of command to request things, they were little different than you or I.

 

[CanuckMA]

So who really cares if they died right?

How the hell do you get that???

The story often refers to the 2 SEALs doing and asking. that they were no longer part of the active military has a bearing on the subject. They were civilians. Highly trained, but civilians. Their death is tragic. But it is disingeous to try to mention that there were SEALs on the groud asking for reinforcements and were denied.

 

[Tgace]

Hmmm...2 SEALS contracted to the CIA Annex in Benghazi. Apparently with commo gear and frequencies to communicate with the military and possibly carrying laser designators for air strikes but they had no ability to request military assets "any more than you or I"???

....OK

 

[Tgace]

...I have to agree on one point though. With the ambassador dead, the real chain of command was likely the chief of station at the annex. But while these guys were contracted security, I find it likely that that, since they were the QRF for the annex, that they had significantly more resources at their disposal than "you or I".

My shot previous was about the "well they were contractors and not military" tone...somehow implying that that fact changes anything in this debacle.

 

[Makalakumu]

My shot previous was about the "well they were contractors and not military" tone...somehow implying that that fact changes anything in this debacle.

This might be a different topic, but do you think "contractors" have the same political fallout as active duty servicemen when they die?

For myself, I could care what the label is, they are human beings doing an incredibly dangerous job and when someone is killed, it's tragic. However, do you think that maybe there might actually be a political difference, as horrible as that sounds?

 

[Tgace]

In this situation no...even if you want to minimize the value of the "contractors" lives, all of the CIA/DOS personnel they were PROTECTING had extreme political value.