Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Obama lied to the world about the Bengazi attack

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    :iainblushesmodestly:
    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

    Leibniz

    Comment


    • #47
      There is even stronger indication that the administration was willfully lying, within hours of last month’s attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya, President Barack Obama’s administration received about a dozen intelligence reports suggesting militants connected to al Qaeda were involved, three government sources said. as published on Reuters UK.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
        So in his interview with CNN, did he refer to Stevens murder as a bump in the road, or did he forget about him?
        I don't think he forgot.

        One needs to know something in the first place before forgetting about it.
        "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

        Comment


        • #49
          As this thing unravels I'm getting actually surprised at the sheer incompetence on display about the aftermath. I shouldn't I guess - the OBL story was all over the map before they finally settled it into a groove after a couple of days, but still.

          This is evidence of frightening amateurishness.

          -dale

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by dalem View Post
            This is evidence of frightening amateurishness.

            -dale
            It seemed that way to me from the start and everything since has born that out.
            In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

            Leibniz

            Comment


            • #51
              How CNN reports the latest
              Obama on Benghazi: We are going to fix it
              President Barack Obama on Thursday defended his administration's handling of the Libya consulate attack, telling Jon Stewart on Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" that he will ultimately fix any problems involving security for diplomatic posts.

              "The government is a big operation and any given time, something screws up," he said in the interview to air Thursday night. "And you make sure that you find out what's broken and you fix it."

              Also: McCain says Romney missed opportunity in Benghazi discussion

              Stewart pressed the president on the aftermath of the terror attack that killed four Americans at a U.S. consulate in Benghazi last month. The administration has faced scrutiny over why the post was not more robustly staffed with security.

              The comedian said the administration's response did not play out in an "optimal" way.

              "I would say, even you would admit, it was not the optimal response, at least to the American people, as far as all of us being on the same page," Stewart said.

              The president replied: "When four Americans get killed, it's not optimal. We're going to fix it. All of it."
              How the international press reports it.

              Obama describes deaths of 4 Americans in Libya as 'not optimal'. Now he's channelling Mike Dukakis

              Sometimes the President can be very odd indeed. In a pre-recorded interview with The Daily Show on Thursday night, host Jon Stewart asked Obama what he thought about the deaths of 4 Americans during the September 11 attack on the US embassy in Benghazi, Libya. The President replied that it was “not optimal.” He was picking up on a sound bite used earlier by Stewart, but he could just as easily have stolen it from a Dalek. It’s an incredibly cold, robotic and insensitive way to describe a human tragedy. This is the quote:

              “Here is what I will say, if four Americans get killed it is not optimal … And we are going to fix it, all of it. And what happens during the course of a presidency, you know the government is a big operation at any given time, something screws up and you make sure you find out what's broken and you fix it.”

              Is this Obama’s Dukakis moment? During the 1988 presidential election, Democratic nominee Mike Dukakis was asked if he would favour the death penalty if a man raped and murdered his wife. Dukakis’ reply was so lacking in emotion that it came across like he wouldn’t really care one way or the other. The Massachusetts liberal was already down in the polls, but his answer helped define him as an out of touch wonk and contributed towards the scale of his defeat. Real people don’t vote for automatons.

              But while Dukakis lost points on style, he at least was honest and philosophically coherent. There is much more wrong with what Obama said to Jon Stewart than just the “not optimal” line. First, it feels like we’ve learned more about what happened in Libya from debates and TV appearances than we ever got from official announcements – which avoided calling this a terrorist attack for two weeks. On this occasion, Obama admitted to Stewart that something had screwed up. Combine that with his declaration in Thursday’s debate that responsibility lies with him and him alone and you could infer that he’s starting to appreciate the scale of the disaster that happened on his watch.

              But vagueness remains. When Stewart pressed the President on why some members of his administration called it a riot when it was actually a terrorist attack, Obama said, “John, the truth is that information comes in, folks put it out throughout the process, people say it is still incomplete.” However, for two weeks some members of the administration (not all) were rather fulsome in saying this was not a terrorist attack. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on September 14: “We were not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent." UN Ambassador Susan Rice on September 16, “We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.” Jay Carney on September 18: “Our belief, based on the information we have, is it was the video that caused the unrest in Cairo, and the video and the unrest in Cairo that helped — that precipitated some of the unrest in Benghazi and elsewhere.”

              The problem with all these statements is that other reports indicate that the administration knew within 24 hours that the incident in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. If that’s true, then – contrary to what Obama told Stewart on Thursday night – the administration did not share everything it knew with the American people. That would make Obama less like Dukakis and more like Nixon.

              Next Monday brings a presidential debate dedicated to foreign policy. By then, the phrase “not optimal” might be in common usage. Perhaps this time Mitt Romney will land a few punches on the subject of Libya.
              In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

              Leibniz

              Comment


              • #52
                But if Stewart used the term first (I haven't heard the clip) then it's somewhat understandable. Still a potentially bad phrasing, but you can parse these guys into bits all day long until they're afraid of saying anything not rehearsed - oh, I see what you did there.

                -dale

                Comment


                • #53
                  (WASHINGTON) — The U.S. military did not quickly intervene during the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya last month because military leaders did not have adequate intelligence information and felt they should not put American forces at risk, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Thursday.

                  In his most extensive comments to date on the unfolding controversy surrounding the attack in Benghazi, Panetta said U.S. forces were on heightened alert because of the anniversary of 9/11 and prepared to respond. But, he said, the attack happened over a few hours and was over before the U.S. had the chance to know what was really occurring.

                  “(The) basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on; without having some real-time information about what’s taking place,” Panetta told Pentagon reporters. “And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.”

                  (MORE: The Other 9/11: Libyan Guards Recount What Happened in Benghazi)

                  Panetta was referring to Gen. Carter Ham, the head of U.S. Africa Command, and Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.


                  Read more: Panetta: US Lacked Early Info on Benghazi Attack | TIME.com

                  Meanwhile....

                  Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later on the annex itself was denied by the CIA chain of command -- who also told the CIA operators twice to "stand down" rather than help the ambassador's team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.
                  Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was part of a small team who was at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When he and others heard the shots fired, they informed their higher-ups at the annex to tell them what they were hearing and requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to "stand down," according to sources familiar with the exchange. Soon after, they were again told to "stand down."
                  Woods and at least two others ignored those orders and made their way to the consulate which at that point was on fire. Shots were exchanged. The rescue team from the CIA annex evacuated those who remained at the consulate and Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack. They could not find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight.
                  At that point, they called again for military support and help because they were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied. There were no communications problems at the annex, according those present at the compound. The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Spectre gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights. The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours -- enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just 480 miles away, to arrive. Fox News has also learned that two separate Tier One Special operations forces were told to wait, among them Delta Force operators.

                  Read more: EXCLUSIVE: CIA operators were denied request for help during Benghazi attack, sources say | Fox News

                  So, despite accurate real time intelligence from impeccable sources on site, neither the Army, CIA nor the State Department 'heard' anything or if they did it was not passed up the chain of command or between agencies: Neither the Sec-Def, Sec-State, Commander AFRICOM nor the White House were told or aware of the attacks in any but the most general sense, none thought there was any actionable intelligence and for 5 days the White House at least continued to believe it was a protest gone wild.

                  Does anyone seriously believe this crock of shit?
                  Last edited by Parihaka; 26 Oct 12,, 22:24.
                  In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                  Leibniz

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    I do not. This was clearly an attempt to hoodwink us.

                    -dale

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      pari,

                      you're looking at two separate issues:

                      1. what was known WHILE the attack was going on?
                      2. what was the timeline of the administration response?

                      regarding 1.), the Fox article makes a big issue out of the fact that there was open comms between the security team and the CIA chain of command. what's not clear is how far it went UP the chain, and the decision-making. this is and i hope will remain classified. so we have no idea if it was negligence, uncertainty about the severity of the attack, uncertainty about the area, the size/composition of hostile forces, etc...all of which go into the decision-making as to what forces are employed. this constitutes more than just coordinates on a mortar team.

                      this is also the more complex when you consider that the CIA would, at minimum, need to reach out to both the Pentagon and to State; the first to organize an armed response, the second to clear the armed response and to ensure that it would not be construed as a hostile act by the US. this was noted in Time:

                      But while the U.S. military was at a heightened state of alert because of 9/11, there were no American forces poised and ready to move immediately into Benghazi when the attack began.

                      Also, the Pentagon would not send forces or aircraft into Libya — a sovereign country — without a request from the State Department and the knowledge or consent of the host nation.
                      regarding the second:

                      http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/22/us...-scrutiny.html

                      as GG mentioned earlier, Amb Rice got some early-scrubbed, unclassified talking points. neither you nor i can know, until/unless things are declassified, what was known when, and how the USG wanted to portray it and for what reasons.

                      but hey, it's so much easier to just say it was all one big political cover-up, i guess.
                      Last edited by astralis; 26 Oct 12,, 22:59.
                      There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Does anyone seriously believe this crock of shit? - I do not. This was clearly an attempt to hoodwink us.

                        September 16
                        Originally posted by Minskaya View Post
                        If I were an American citizen, I would seriously begin to question the politico-cover-our-ass prattle that is emanating from Washington.
                        It was obvious to me, just days after the attack, that Washington was initially being less than forthright.

                        In the interim, numerous intergovernmental shortcomings have been revealed which need to be thoroughly examined and addressed.
                        sigpic

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by astralis View Post
                          pari,

                          you're looking at two separate issues:

                          1. what was known WHILE the attack was going on?
                          2. what was the timeline of the administration response?

                          regarding 1.), the Fox article makes a big issue out of the fact that there was open comms between the security team and the CIA chain of command. what's not clear is how far it went UP the chain, and the decision-making. this is and i hope will remain classified. so we have no idea if it was negligence, uncertainty about the severity of the attack, uncertainty about the area, the size/composition of hostile forces, etc...all of which go into the decision-making as to what forces are employed. this constitutes more than just coordinates on a mortar team.

                          this is also the more complex when you consider that the CIA would, at minimum, need to reach out to both the Pentagon and to State; the first to organize an armed response, the second to clear the armed response and to ensure that it would not be construed as a hostile act by the US. this was noted in Time:



                          regarding the second:

                          http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/22/us...-scrutiny.html

                          as GG mentioned earlier, Amb Rice got some early-scrubbed, unclassified talking points. neither you nor i can know, until/unless things are declassified, what was known when, and how the USG wanted to portray it and for what reasons.

                          but hey, it's so much easier to just say it was all one big political cover-up, i guess.
                          Two separate political issues perhaps; that's certainly the way it's being played in the media.

                          However, we now know that the CIA had real-time intel. It's not a case of a local staffer making a judgement call because we also know that AFRICOM had the same real-time intel because the CIA operatives were calling for back-up support from a Spectre gunship.

                          At this point the decision-making process not to intervene and to tell the CIA operatives to stand down had to have entered the political domain i.e. the White House. Unless of course you subscribe to the notion that there's no coordination during an event like this and decisions on such are taken at a junior/mid level.

                          As for the assets, Fox also mentions

                          The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours -- enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just 480 miles away, to arrive. Fox News has also learned that two separate Tier One Special operations forces were told to wait, among them Delta Force operators.
                          I'll remind you other Consulate staff had been rescued by the CIA operatives and were being protected at the CIA annex, under attack for over four hours. The incident didn't end with the death of Ambassador Stevens.

                          If their information is correct, it has to have been a political decision not to intervene. Revealing who made that decision is not an opsec issue, merely a political one.
                          Last edited by Parihaka; 26 Oct 12,, 23:21.
                          In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                          Leibniz

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            astralis-

                            Give us credit for SOME brains and not 100% reactionary "gotcha". For instance, I think it's foolish to start criticizing the "military response" that didn't happen for the simple reason that we don't know what any possible assets may have been doing or capable of.

                            -dale

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by dalem View Post
                              astralis-

                              Give us credit for SOME brains and not 100% reactionary "gotcha". For instance, I think it's foolish to start criticizing the "military response" that didn't happen for the simple reason that we don't know what any possible assets may have been doing or capable of.

                              -dale
                              Depends on what carriers were where, and what assets were deployed at Aviano in Italy. Its likely we had at least 1 USAF, USMC or USN tactical fighter unit in range likely co-based with the drones that watched the attack happen. Those drone feeds were probably watched by several levels of head quarters. Sadly the terrorist target was a consulate, if it had been a military compound several different military commanders would have had the authority to act but consulates belong to State not the Pentagon.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                One military analyst on Fox said that we sent 8 special operators to Bengazi from Tripoli. They were there in time to help and evacuated others safely. Another team of 50 special operators were moved to Tripoli to defend the embassy, which I agree. We did not know if there would be a simultaneous and coordinated attack on our embassy.

                                My beef is why wasn't security in Bengazi raised before the attack? Other western powers had evacuated their counselate already due to elevated threat level. We not only stayed, we reduced security at Bengazi. And then there wasn't stronger response to the attack even though the state department was monitoring it in real time. Where should the buck stop?
                                "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X