Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Obama lied to the world about the Bengazi attack

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

  • z,

    faced with such explosive allegations you don't think the place would leak like a sieve? this is washington we're talking about, where the SECDEF earlier made people going to the Tank sign a pledge not to leak anything, lol.
    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


    • Originally posted by astralis View Post
      z,

      faced with such explosive allegations you don't think the place would leak like a sieve? this is washington we're talking about, where the SECDEF earlier made people going to the Tank sign a pledge not to leak anything, lol.
      I think it was an attempt by the administration to stonewall until after the election because they have something to hide.

      Comment


      • This AP article gives some credence to the administration's claim that they believed the attack was spontaneous, but the evidence is thin.

        It also mentions that there had been threats of attacks against the consulate before 9/11.


        10-29-12 revised 10-30-12

        TRIPOLI, Libya (AP) — It began around nightfall on Sept. 11 with around 150 bearded gunmen, some wearing the Afghan-style tunics favored by Islamic militants, sealing off the streets leading to the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. They set up roadblocks with pick-up trucks mounted with heavy machine guns, according to witnesses.

        The trucks bore the logo of Ansar al-Shariah, a powerful local group of Islamist militants who worked with the municipal government to manage security in Benghazi, the main city in eastern Libya and birthplace of the uprising last year that ousted Moammar Gadhafi after a 42-year dictatorship.

        There was no sign of a spontaneous protest against an American-made movie denigrating Islam’s Prophet Muhammad. But a lawyer passing by the scene said he saw the militants gathering around 20 youths from nearby to chant against the film. Within an hour or so, the assault began, guns blazing as the militants blasted into the compound.

        The witness accounts gathered by The Associated Press give a from-the-ground perspective for the sharply partisan debate in the U.S. over the attack that left U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead. They corroborate the conclusion largely reached by American officials that it was a planned militant assault. But they also suggest the militants may have used the film controversy as a cover for the attack.

        The ambiguity has helped fuel the election-time bickering in the United States ever since.

        As that debate roiled, the actual events — and their meaning — became somewhat skewed in the mouths of politicians. One assumption often made in the back-and-forth is that if the attack was planned, then it must have been linked to al-Qaida.

        Ansar al-Shariah, the group whose members are suspected in the attack, is made up of militants with an al-Qaida-like ideology, but it is not clear whether it has any true ties to the terror organization. Made up mainly of veterans of last year’s civil war, it is one of the many powerful, heavily armed militias that operate freely in Libya and in Benghazi, while government control remains weak. Some Benghazi officials have praised Ansar al-Shariah for helping keep order in the city, even as they note its jihadi ideology.

        With its arsenal of weapons, the group is capable of carrying out such an attack on the consulate on its own and even on relatively short notice. Islamist militias in Benghazi had in previous months threatened to attack the compound.

        U.S. officials say they are still investigating whether there is an al-Qaida connection. They say members of Ansar al-Shariah called members of al-Qaida’s branch in North Africa outside of Libya and boasted of the attack. The administration has even said it is prepared to carry out drone strikes against the branch, known as al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb, or AQIM, if a link is proven. But the officials also acknowledge the calls alone do not yet prove AQIM was involved.

        A day after the Benghazi attack, an unidentified Ansar al-Shariah spokesman said the militia was not involved “as an organization” — leaving open the possibility members were involved. He praised the attack as a popular “uprising” sparked by the anti-Islam film, further propagating the image of a mob attack against the consulate.

        So far, the attackers’ motives can only be speculated at.

        Yasser el-Sirri, a former Egyptian militant who runs the Islamic Observation Center in London closely tracking jihadi groups, said the attack “had nothing to do with the film but it was a coincidence that served the (militants’) purpose.”

        He believes the ambassador was the target and the attackers may have been inspired by an al-Qaida call to avenge the death of a top Libyan jihadist on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on the United States in 2001. But he offered no firm evidence that was the motive.

        The news trickled out slowly the night of the attack, with initial reports overshadowed by the storming of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo by protesters angry over the film. It was only the next morning that Stevens’ death was confirmed.

        On the day of the attack and the next day, The Associated Press referred to it as a mob attack, based on Libyan officials’ comment that there was a significant unarmed protest at the time. In reporting the following days, AP referred to it as an “armed attack” and detailed its organized nature.

        The past week, the AP has gathered accounts from five witnesses, including one of the embassy guards and several people living next door to the consulate compound who were present when the militants first moved in. Most spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals for talking about the attack.

        The neighbors all described the militants setting up checkpoints around the compound at about 8 p.m. The State Department’s timeline says the attack itself began at around 9:40 p.m.

        Khaled al-Haddar, a lawyer who passed by the scene as he headed to his nearby home, said he saw the fighters gathering a few youths from among passers-by and urged them to chant against the film.

        “I am certain they had planned to do something like this, I don’t know if it was hours or days, but it was definitely planned,” said al-Haddar. “From the way they set up the checkpoints and gathered people, it was very professional.”

        The guard said he saw no protesters. He heard a few shouts of “God is great,” then a barrage of automatic weapons fire and rocket-propelled grenades began, along with barrages from heavy machine guns mounted on trucks.

        The attackers set fire to the main consulate building. Stevens and another staffer, caught inside amid the confusion, died of smoke inhalation.

        The attack came from the front and the side. A neighbor whose house is on side of the consulate compound said militants with their faces wrapped in scarves attacking.

        Because of the checkpoints, “it felt like our neighborhood was occupied, no one could get out or in,” he said.

        The effectiveness of the roadblocks was later revealed in the State Department’s account of the evacuation. It described how the rescue force came under heavy fire and grenade attacks as they tried to leave the consulate area.

        They evacuated staffers to a security compound across town, where they continued to come under fire. A precision mortar hit the compound’s building at 4 a.m., killing two other Americans.
        To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

        Comment


        • Originally posted by astralis View Post
          we still do not know the timing. did the President know ten minutes after the attack began? did he know two hours into the attack? or after the attack was finished?

          either way there will be a paper trail following such a directive, which once unclassified i'd be interested in seeing.
          Will we still be alive to see these docs? Will Obama still be alive to answer charges?
          "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

          Comment


          • Either Obama's administration lied or they are incompetent.
            No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

            To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by JAD_333 View Post
              But to your question, he could mean directives he gave AFTER the attack. It's not clear like many other of his statements. As you know, a fundamentally true statement can lead to a false understanding.
              It is certainly ambiguous. I tend to hang on "the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives." Not, "the minute I found out what had happened". Too much ambiguity to claim someone ignored his directives while the attacks were going on or he in fact never gave those directives, but like everything else in this case, vague.
              In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

              Leibniz

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Doktor View Post
                Either Obama's administration lied or they are incompetent.
                That's pretty much the Obama's entire career. When questioned about his attendence in a racist and anti-American church for 20 years, he said he didn't know about "that" part of the church. Yeah, I go to work for 20 years but don't know what the company does. Sure.
                "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
                  It is certainly ambiguous. I tend to hang on "the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives." Not, "the minute I found out what had happened". Too much ambiguity to claim someone ignored his directives while the attacks were going on or he in fact never gave those directives, but like everything else in this case, vague.
                  Even taken at your view, a corps level HQ can expect 24-28 hours before its orders are executed. Unless Obama was presented with a decision on Options A,B, or C ... or even a go-no-go decision, an order to "do something" would take far too long to execute.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                    Even taken at your view, a corps level HQ can expect 24-28 hours before its orders are executed. Unless Obama was presented with a decision on Options A,B, or C ... or even a go-no-go decision, an order to "do something" would take far too long to execute.
                    I'm glad you brought that up Sir.

                    I want to beat my head against the screen when I read, or hear some "expert" say that a react force could have been there in an hour.

                    At the MEU (SOC) level rapid response planning takes at least 6 hours.

                    A good real world example of react times would be the OGrady rescue.

                    The 24MEU(SOC) was the on-call trap force at the time. They already had maps, had run drills, IOW conducted 90% of the prep for conducting a recovery mission. They were sitting in the hanger bay with gear on and ammo issued. The planning process was complete except for a few fill in the blanks (location, ingress/egress)

                    The MEU Commander got the order to execute the mission at 4:40. The flight took about 45 min. At around 6:45 they were at the LZ.

                    That's a bit more than an hour prep after getting the go-ahead on an "On Call" mission.

                    None of the prep had been done for a Libya , away from the embassy ground rescue mission.

                    If the President ordered a security team in the first minute of the attack, they would still be in their staging site after the attack was over.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
                      None of the prep had been done for a Libya , away from the embassy ground rescue mission.
                      How can you be sure that 1) no prep had been done and 2) a rescue from the consulate wouldn't have been considered?


                      If the President ordered a security team in the first minute of the attack, they would still be in their staging site after the attack was over.
                      Benghazi is on the coast and US ships were in the region. It seems to me a rescue mission could have gotten there in less than 6 hours. But time may have been less a factor than lack of hard information on the size and weaponry of the attacking force.
                      To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JAD_333 View Post
                        How can you be sure that 1) no prep had been done and 2) a rescue from the consulate wouldn't have been considered?

                        Benghazi is on the coast and US ships were in the region. It seems to me a rescue mission could have gotten there in less than 6 hours. But time may have been less a factor than lack of hard information on the size and weaponry of the attacking force.
                        That is not what is reported. All that was said was Obama given an order to do SOMETHING but nothing about he was given options on what to do? Or even that a rescue plan was readied to execute and all Obama needed was a go-no-go.

                        I don't like Obama but I will not fault him for not executing a contingency plan that was not in existence.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JAD_333 View Post
                          How can you be sure that 1) no prep had been done and 2) a rescue from the consulate wouldn't have been considered?
                          What was the area of responsibility for the react force? Planning at the Warplan Orange level was most likely in the system. ie, this is the consulate building, there are X# of possible landing zones for Y type of helos in the area.

                          But the info needed to actually conduct a reinforcement/rescue operation would not be there. Mission orders must be developed based on the situation at the time of the order.

                          The O'Grady mission was able to react as fast as they did because the area he was located in was known and he had been on the ground for 5 days. The commanders had up to the minute info on Enemy, terrain, the troops available to be used. Maps of the area were in the TRAP force hands. The birds were already selected, were at the highest state of material readiness ...

                          Benghazi is on the coast and US ships were in the region. It seems to me a rescue mission could have gotten there in less than 6 hours. But time may have been less a factor than lack of hard information on the size and weaponry of the attacking force.
                          Poor planning, the "jump on the helo and go get some" attitude, was one of the reason that the "Blackhawk Down" incident happened.

                          Ships were in the area. What type? How much combat power could those ships project? What training did the crew have? what readiness state were the helos in? how many back up helos were there?
                          and a whole list of other questions that must be answered before you even think about staging an operation. Even the most basic. Did the ships have up to date city maps of the area.

                          Yes, people with guns could have jumped in some helos and been on the ground in less than 6 hours.

                          But, without hard info,and proper planning, you turn the rescue force into the "Need to be rescued" force.

                          Comment


                          • The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on Monday dispelled rumors that the chief of U.S. Africa Command is being replaced because of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

                            ArmyGen. Martin Dempsey said that Gen. Carter Ham, commander of AfriCom, had been scheduled for a change of command.

                            “The speculation that Gen. Carter Ham is departing Africa Command (AFRICOM) due to events in Benghazi, Libya, on 11 September 2012 is absolutely false,” Gen. Dempsey said in a statement Monday.

                            Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta announced Oct. 18 that ArmyGen. David Rodriguez would succeed Gen. Ham, about a month after the attack in which U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed at the U.S. Consulate.

                            Mr. Panetta said last week that intelligence was not clear enough during the eight-hour attack to warrant inserting U.S. troops.

                            “General Ham’s departure is part of routine succession planning that has been on going since July. He continues to serve in AFRICOM with my complete confidence,” Gen. Dempsey said.
                            Read more: Dempsey hits rumors about AfriCom chief’s departure - Washington Times Dempsey hits rumors about AfriCom chief
                            Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
                            In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                            Leibniz

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by astralis View Post
                              uh, drone footage is routinely TS/SCI...
                              No, it isn't.

                              Comment


                              • blues,

                                No, it isn't
                                you're the drone expert so i will defer to you. however, when i escorted a foreign delegation to beale in july 2011, though, one of the things we noted to the delegation was the security of both the recon asset and the products...products aren't released unclas to the world in general, so my original point still stands.
                                Last edited by astralis; 31 Oct 12,, 14:10.
                                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

                                Working...
                                X