3rdnlng Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 And yet he continues to spell it incorrectly. And it's not even a funny misspelling, like instead of replacing the Y with an I, he should have used an A And that my friends, is something Man has been investigating since the dawn of time I didn't mean to make a big flap about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 Most Amercans don't understand what happened, and most don't care, even though they recognize Amenricans died.... Its why it was irrelevant in the campaign... Which proves that the collective IQ of the country is going down...fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 In my earlier post, I said I'd get some links. It's interesting that no single article covers this thing as much as CNN did last night, but there's more than enough quotes to confirm the bulk of it... there were initial classified reports that included the video.demonstration.gone.bad theory and that it was the work of a terrorist attack, maybe p/o Al Qaeda or maybe some other group. Nothing surprising about that. This probably doesn't require any confirmation, and anyone paying attention realizes there were conflicting reports at the beginning. One thing I hadn't heard before was that there were at least 20 reports that the attack began out of a protest about the video, those were disproved of course, but not until after General Patreus gave his 1st briefing. What this source says Petraeus told him is there were about 20 intelligence reports that began to come in blaming that video in -- that anti-Islamic video that sparked the riots in Cairo. That's the confusion -- was it that film or was it a terrorist attack? They got 20 intelligence reports blaming the film riot in Cairo. But -- and this is critical -- those reports were disproved over time, but disproved after Petraeus made his initial presentation to Congress. some militia groups claimed responsibility, and a new source said it was a group affiliated with Al Qaeda, that the CIA hadn't confirmed the source's claim yet, and they felt, at least initially, that they needed to protect the new source. ABC News quotes a senior intelligence official, who discusses why they didn't mention Al Qaeda at the beginning. CNN said it was a "new source", but "tenuous" seems be to the operative word. Because the talking points were to be unclassified, the official said intelligence and legal issues had to be considered. For one, the official said the information about the attack involving individuals linked to al-Qaeda came from classified sources. Secondly, the official said those links were “so tenuous, as they still are, it makes sense to be cautious before pointing fingers to avoid setting off a chain of circular and self-reinforcing assumptions.” General Patreus seems to say that he, and maybe the CIA, thought it was a terrorist attack from the beginning. He didn't exactly push that theory when he made his earlier statement right after the attack, but he could have been overruled, he had been sticking to the unclassified talking points, or maybe the intelligence just wasn't solid yet. Unknown I guess. The above link confirms that he was convinced it was a terrorist attack from the outset, and subsequent reports from his last briefing said the same thing. There's some disagreement whether he drove home made this point at the first briefing or not. David Petraeus wants to tell Congress that he knew almost immediately after the September 11th attacks that the group Ansar Al- Sharia, that all Qaeda sympathizing group in Libya, was responsible for the attacks. the unclassified talking points were circulated amongst State, the WH, CIA, National Security, FBI, etc. This Bloomberg report confirms the above. Senior officials from a number of agencies, including the National Security Council, the CIA, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the State Department, reviewed the classified reporting beginning on the afternoon of Sept. 14. They finished work on the unclassified talking points the next day, said two officials who participated in the process. They said the drafters were under no pressure to gloss over the fact that the assault was by definition a terrorist act. the only WH change was from 'consulate' to 'annex'. They did not appear to remove terrorist references or that it had to say it was because of the video; that the unclassified report was written and approved by all those groups. Ben Rhodes says the White House didn't edit the unclassified talking points. "If there were adjustments made to them within the intelligence community, that's common, and that's something they would have done themselves," Ben Rhodes, deputy national security adviser, told reporters. "The only edit ... made by the White House was the factual edit as to how to refer to the facility." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 The bottom line is that despite Steven's pleas, more security was not only not provided, it was taken away. Then during the skirmish, not only was no help given, there were orders for those who wanted to help to stand down. The attempted cover-up (which it was since the movie claim was a farce anyone with even half a brain saw through) was just the icing on the cake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 Even if you buy that they were ok in not disclosing what happened (I don't doubt there was some stuff that I didn't need to know about) - it's just mind boggling they pushed the video angle so hard, with "no comment" and "we plan to bring those responsible to justice" as such readily available responses for the first few days. Just bypass those totally? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 We still don't know what happened with the request for additional security before the tragedy, but most of the experts have questioned whether a dozen or so more Marines would have made the difference. That question, who decided to decline the request, needs to be explained. That whole Fox News report "stand down" thing was strongly denied by the CIA. “We can say with confidence that the Agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi. Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. In fact, it is important to remember how many lives were saved by courageous Americans who put their own safety at risk that night — and that some of those selfless Americans gave their lives in the effort to rescue their comrades.” I think you'd agree (or maybe not) that it's easy to have hindsight 20-20 when the early intelligence was all over the map and as insiders quoted in my post, there was no cover up, but rather initial unclassified vs. unconfirmed, classified analysis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 (edited) Even if you buy that they were ok in not disclosing what happened (I don't doubt there was some stuff that I didn't need to know about) - it's just mind boggling they pushed the video angle so hard, with "no comment" and "we plan to bring those responsible to justice" as such readily available responses for the first few days. Just bypass those totally? ya, that's a valid point. IMO only, I think it was more about rigidly sticking to the original, unclassified talking points until they were sure what happened. No doubt that it created real problems for the administration. EDIT: Obama did say "And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people" in the Rose Garden on Sep 12 It's not enough, and they should've had a better response. Edited November 18, 2012 by In-A-Gadda-Levitre Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 Susan rice lied up a storm. Obama is trying to protect her because he had her slotted to replace hilary. McCain is saying he'll do everything possible to block her nomination. Rare instance I agree with him. I always thought she was a horrible ambassador. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 Susan rice lied up a storm. Obama is trying to protect her because he had her slotted to replace hilary. McCain is saying he'll do everything possible to block her nomination. Rare instance I agree with him. I always thought she was a horrible ambassador. umm, why don't you share, specifically, what she lied about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keukasmallies Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 Duck says Obama is death; not sure about that, but I'm sure he'll be the death of some of us given the path he has carved out for the next four years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outsidethebox Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 Duck says Obama is death; not sure about that, but I'm sure he'll be the death of some of us given the path he has carved out for the next four years. Please explain why you feel that way. I am just curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 Susan rice lied up a storm. Obama is trying to protect her because he had her slotted to replace hilary. McCain is saying he'll do everything possible to block her nomination. Rare instance I agree with him. I always thought she was a horrible ambassador. Rice was merely spreading Barry's lies. Doesn't make her less culpable in the whole thing, but it wasn't her lie. I'm guessing it was Valerie Jarrett's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 The next stage in the scandal, the "official" denial; White House Denies Editing Terrorism Reference Out Of CIA’s Benghazi Talking Points. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 The next stage in the scandal, the "official" denial; White House Denies Editing Terrorism Reference Out Of CIA’s Benghazi Talking Points. Senior officials from a number of agencies, including the National Security Council, the CIA, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the State Department, reviewed the classified reporting beginning on the afternoon of Sept. 14. They finished work on the unclassified talking points the next day, said two officials who participated in the process. They said the drafters were under no pressure to gloss over the fact that the assault was by definition a terrorist act Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 We still don't know what happened with the request for additional security before the tragedy, but most of the experts have questioned whether a dozen or so more Marines would have made the difference. That question, who decided to decline the request, needs to be explained. That whole Fox News report "stand down" thing was strongly denied by the CIA. I think you'd agree (or maybe not) that it's easy to have hindsight 20-20 when the early intelligence was all over the map and as insiders quoted in my post, there was no cover up, but rather initial unclassified vs. unconfirmed, classified analysis. Then I question the credentials of those so called "experts" since they obviously know nothing about Marine Corps history with regards to our Embassy duties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 Then I question the credentials of those so called "experts" since they obviously know nothing about Marine Corps history with regards to our Embassy duties. Extra marines may not have helped. But when someone asks for more security, doesn't get it, gets it taken away, and dies, someone needs to hang for that. Disallowing help (the CIA denies that? Whodathunkit?!) during the attack is even worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 Extra marines may not have helped. But when someone asks for more security, doesn't get it, gets it taken away, and dies, someone needs to hang for that. Disallowing help (the CIA denies that? Whodathunkit?!) during the attack is even worse. all due respect for the former Seals that were there, but check that Extra marines may not have helped there were NO Marines there.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 all due respect for the former Seals that were there, but check that there were NO Marines there.... Meant to say security, but probably had your mention of the Marine Corps on my mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 Then I question the credentials of those so called "experts" since they obviously know nothing about Marine Corps history with regards to our Embassy duties. I hear what you're saying, but if you have a situation where, you're in their hood, you've got finite firepower, and the timeline exposed how long it took for reinforcements to arrive, not anyone's fault, but more about dealing with Libyan authorities and stuff. Those militias can call in some serious hardware and manpower in minutes. Remember the CIA's primary mission in Benghazi was to find all those missing shoulder-fired rockets. 2 dozen marines or seals might just be outgunned for a few hours. Air cover, nobody's talking much, except I read somewhere that they couldn't get AC130s or close cover for some reason. So it's nothing against our freaking amazing fighting squads, just overwhelming manpower and firepower in a short time might be too much. If we're talking about a more perfect world, where there's not only adequate feet in the compound, but reinforcements and other backup get there in time, then that's a different situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 (edited) all due respect for the former Seals that were there, but check that there were NO Marines there.... in this case, extra marines means if their request for more security WAS honored, there would have couple squads of marines assigned to the consulate and the safe house. Not that there were any there. My bad choice of words. Extra marines may not have helped. But when someone asks for more security, doesn't get it, gets it taken away, and dies, someone needs to hang for that. Disallowing help (the CIA denies that? Whodathunkit?!) during the attack is even worse. Got taken away? what do you mean? Stand down, I'll just put this out there one more time... Fox News put out a story that said the GRS assets were told to stand down, and that went viral. There was no confirmation or evidence, just someone told Jennifer Griffin and she reported it. The CIA came back and said NFW, it didn't happen at any level, the Fox story was dead wrong, and they knew it for a fact. You can choose to ignore that, but it was a very strong condemnation by the CIA. Edited November 19, 2012 by In-A-Gadda-Levitre Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts