Democrats now critical of Rice's Benghazi explanation, amid more damaging evidence

  • Thread starter Thread starter livingwordunity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
colmywaykurtz said:
Robert Gates, former Sec of Def of Bush and Obama, had this to say: " “Sending in special forces or a small group of people to try and provide help, based on everything I have read, people really didn’t know what was going on in Benghazi contemporaneously. And to send some small number of special forces or other troops in without knowing what the environment is, without knowing what the threat is, without having any intelligence in terms of what is actually going on on the ground, I think, would have been very dangerous. And personally, I would not have approved that because we just don’t – it’s sort of a cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces. The one thing that our forces are noted for is planning and preparation before we send people in harm’s way. And there just wasn’t time to do that.”

Ambassador Pickering’s (and those of Kelly Ayotte, Dick Durbin, and Bob Gates) comments to CBS are very pertinent as well:

www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57584095/face-the-nation-transcripts-may-12-2013-gates-pickering-ayotte-durbin-and-angelou/
Click to expand...
So why were the special forces so willing to go?

Why the big secret on who told them not to go?

What does Robert Gates say about hiring your enemy to be your security force in a hostile area? :rolleyes:
 
SamH said:
So why were the special forces so willing to go?

Why the big secret on who told them not to go?

What does Robert Gates say about hiring your enemy to be your security force in a hostile area? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Also they had a drone overhead and at least intermittent contact with some of those at the Consulate. They KNEW what was going on.

I know the military and the guys who would be charged with the rescue are not the pansies that Gates claims.

That’s what the military does after all…goes into dangerous places and fights dangerous enemies.

Lisa
 
SamH said:
Apparently that’s what the State Department does in really dangerous places.
Click to expand...
“We don’t leave our own behind” as they say.

Those guys in the embassy should have been well armed, I don’t know details about things such as that, grenades, mortars, etc.
 
Dawnia said:
Um…these guys weren’t in Bengazi site seeing. They were working. For the government who was charged with protecting them.
Click to expand...
But that’s the point. Who charged this government for providing security around the world?
And what’s enough? Will the taxpayers be okay with all that, once it’s determined that thousands of troops might not be enough?

Geez. Our government can’t even protect against foreign aggression on our own soil.
 
ProVobis said:
But that’s the point. Who charged this government for providing security around the world?
And what’s enough? Will the taxpayers be okay with all that, once it’s determined that thousands of troops might not be enough?

Geez. Our government can’t even protect against foreign aggression on our own soil.
Click to expand...
The non-response to the attack, the lack of security, the sending of Ambassador Stevens to Benghazi are all the result of State Dept’s policies and decisions. The Embassy and Consulate are considered American soil. The military is charged with defending us from all enemies and they never leave a man behind. Further there was a team ready and willing to go.

Aside from that your post is totally off point and in fact the comments about “thousands of troops” is totally irrelevant. Are you trying to confuse or distract?

Lisa
 
ProVobis said:
But that’s the point. Who charged this government for providing security around the world?
And what’s enough? Will the taxpayers be okay with all that, once it’s determined that thousands of troops might not be enough?

Geez. Our government can’t even protect against foreign aggression on our own soil.
Click to expand...
Agreed. That’s why everyone else had pulled out of Benghazi, they couldn’t provide protection for their people. Our State Department reduced the security personel and refused to allow our people to leave. Instead they hired people directly associated with the terrorist that stormed the compound.
 
SamH said:
Agreed. That’s why everyone else had pulled out of Benghazi, they couldn’t provide protection for their people. Our State Department reduced the security personel and refused to allow our people to leave. Instead they hired people directly associated with the terrorist that stormed the compound.
Click to expand...
Exactly, you just need to read the timeline Abyssina provided. Clearly they not only didn’t increase security, they pulled out a team shortly before the attack. The day of the attack Shawn Smith spoke to his mother about his concerns, that someone had been taking photographs in the Consulate and acted as if he were casing the facility. There was already a huge hole from a prior attack. That they were there on 9/11 shows a tremendous lapse in judgment. The story is that Stevens was there at the specific request of Mrs Clinton. Now I’ve heard stories of CIA gun running which may or may not prove true. But it was clear that Mrs Clinton wanted the American presence in a newly friendly Libya to be her swan song. I think one of the saddest things about this event was that I think Ambassador Stevens truly thought Mrs Clnton was a friend as well as his boss. He probably thought she had his back…well maybe with a knife.

Lisa
 
The worm is turning, this from MAUREEN DOWD…she doesn’t shy from her usual right wing nut bashing but she is HARD on the Prez and Hill

nytimes.com/2013/05/12/opinion/sunday/dowd-when-myths-collide-in-the-capital.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

Here’s a quote:

***Yet in this hottest of hot spots, the State Department’s minimum security requirements were not met, requests for more security were rejected, and contingency plans were not drawn up, despite the portentous date of 9/11 and cascading warnings from the C.I.A., which had more personnel in Benghazi than State did and vetted the feckless Libyan Praetorian Guard. When the Pentagon called an elite Special Forces team three hours into the attack, it was training in Croatia — decidedly not a hot spot. ***

Later she quotes Panetta as saying “We responded quickly” adding, yes they responded quickly that they wouldn’t help.

It’s getting crowded under that bus…

Lisa
 
_Abyssinia said:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-gMFoMXngb...G9L8fps2OU/s1600/130511-benghazi-timeline.gif

directorblue.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/damning-benghazi-timeline-spreadsheet.html?spref=tw
Click to expand...
One thing might be added to this timeline. In 2011, Hillary Clinton warned Congress that the military cuts to the budget that Republicans proposed and passed might very well be detrimental to the security of American interests, including its embassies and consulates abroad.

While Mitch McConnell and Glenn Beck (no surprise there) have both spoken of a huge conspiracy net between Benghazi and other governmental agencies, perhaps it is the IRS story that may really have legs. Stay tuned.
 
meltzerboy said:
One thing might be added to this timeline. In 2011, Hillary Clinton warned Congress that the military cuts to the budget that Republicans proposed and passed might very well be detrimental to the security of American interests, including its embassies and consulates abroad.
Click to expand...
in listening to the hearings everyone involved, Democrats included, acknowledged that budget cuts head no impact on Benghazi. They had more security in Bermuda than try did in Benghazi!
 
livingwordunity said:
Source
Click to expand...
At this article: mediamatters.org/blog/2013/05/06/weekly-standard-accidentally-disproves-central/193917 This is the crucial article to read, out of all those mentioned in this post.

mediamatters.org reports that Weekly Standard’s release of the original draft of the CIA’s talking points in an effort to show how they were “changed” accidentally revealed that CIA itself believed in a link between the Benghazi attacks and the Youtube video.

"A central facet of the right-wing media’s criticism of the Obama administration’s response to the September attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya has been inadvertently disproved by The Weekly Standard.

"For months, the right-wing media has suggested that the Obama administration had for political purposes attempted to link the Benghazi attacks to an anti-Islam YouTube video. According to this theory, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, and other high-ranking members of the administration had highlighted the video as a “diversion tactic” to downplay the attack’s connection to terrorism and cover up the supposed failure of American foreign policy that would indicate. But the original draft of talking points on the attacks generated by the CIA – released last week by The Weekly Standard in an effort to demonstrate how those talking points were changed “to obscure the truth”-- prove that the intelligence community itself believed that such a link existed.

"In the Weekly Standard article, Stephen F. Hayes highlighted how specifics about the involvement of members of an al Qaeda-linked terrorist group that were included in an initial September 14 draft of talking points by the CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis were later removed by administration officials. Included in Hayes’ report are images of the various versions of those talking points, which serve to drastically undermine the right-wing media’s critique. Here’s the first bullet point from what The Weekly Standard terms “Version 1”:

"We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex.

"In the final version of the document, that bullet reads:

"The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. diplomatic post and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.

"The “protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo” were part of a series of global riots and protests in Muslim countries that came in response to increasing awareness of the anti-Islam video.

"These talking points were used by Ambassador Rice for a series of September 16 television interviews. The right-wing media subsequently engaged in a witch hunt to portray her as untruthful and misleading for connecting the attack to the video. But as the Weekly Standard has now shown, it was the CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis and not political appointees that introduced that link into the talking points.

"Moreover, the involvement of al Qaeda-linked terrorists in the attack does not preclude the video’s possible role as the proximate cause of the attack. The New York Times reported in October that while there was no peaceful demonstration outside the Benghazi facility before the attack began, “the attackers, recognized as members of a local militant group called Ansar al-Shariah, did tell bystanders that they were attacking the compound because they were angry about the video.”

“Note that contrary to the suggestion that the administration had sought to downplay the involvement of terrorists in the attack, President Obama called it an “act of terror” during his September 12 Rose Garden address.”

The article has links in abundance, which I post here. mediamatters.org/research/2013/01/23/what-the-media-should-know-about-secretary-clin/192354#a

mediamatters.org/research/2012/10/16/contrary-to-right-wing-media-claims-report-conf/190649

mediamatters.org/research/2012/10/16/contrary-to-right-wing-media-claims-report-conf/190649

thenation.com/article/169977/whats-behind-us-embassy-protests-egypt

mediamatters.org/research/2012/10/16/contrary-to-right-wing-media-claims-report-conf/190649

Between the Weekly Standard’s inadvertent blunder and the New York Times article, I think it’s safe to say that the connections between Benghazi, Cairo et al, and the Youtube video have a pretty solid provenance.

Hence, no “smokescreen” by State or the White House.
 
colmywaykurtz said:
At this article: mediamatters.org/blog/2013/05/06/weekly-standard-accidentally-disproves-central/193917 This is the crucial article to read, out of all those mentioned in this post.

mediamatters.org reports that Weekly Standard’s release of the original draft of the CIA’s talking points in an effort to show how they were “changed” accidentally revealed that CIA itself believed in a link between the Benghazi attacks and the Youtube video.

"A central facet of the right-wing media’s criticism of the Obama administration’s response to the September attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya has been inadvertently disproved by The Weekly Standard.

"For months, the right-wing media has suggested that the Obama administration had for political purposes attempted to link the Benghazi attacks to an anti-Islam YouTube video. According to this theory, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, and other high-ranking members of the administration had highlighted the video as a “diversion tactic” to downplay the attack’s connection to terrorism and cover up the supposed failure of American foreign policy that would indicate. But the original draft of talking points on the attacks generated by the CIA – released last week by The Weekly Standard in an effort to demonstrate how those talking points were changed “to obscure the truth”-- prove that the intelligence community itself believed that such a link existed.

"In the Weekly Standard article, Stephen F. Hayes highlighted how specifics about the involvement of members of an al Qaeda-linked terrorist group that were included in an initial September 14 draft of talking points by the CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis were later removed by administration officials. Included in Hayes’ report are images of the various versions of those talking points, which serve to drastically undermine the right-wing media’s critique. Here’s the first bullet point from what The Weekly Standard terms “Version 1”:

"We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex.

"In the final version of the document, that bullet reads:

"The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. diplomatic post and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.

"The “protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo” were part of a series of global riots and protests in Muslim countries that came in response to increasing awareness of the anti-Islam video.

"These talking points were used by Ambassador Rice for a series of September 16 television interviews. The right-wing media subsequently engaged in a witch hunt to portray her as untruthful and misleading for connecting the attack to the video. But as the Weekly Standard has now shown, it was the CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis and not political appointees that introduced that link into the talking points.

"Moreover, the involvement of al Qaeda-linked terrorists in the attack does not preclude the video’s possible role as the proximate cause of the attack. The New York Times reported in October that while there was no peaceful demonstration outside the Benghazi facility before the attack began, “the attackers, recognized as members of a local militant group called Ansar al-Shariah, did tell bystanders that they were attacking the compound because they were angry about the video.”

“Note that contrary to the suggestion that the administration had sought to downplay the involvement of terrorists in the attack, President Obama called it an “act of terror” during his September 12 Rose Garden address.”

The article has links in abundance, which I post here. mediamatters.org/research/2013/01/23/what-the-media-should-know-about-secretary-clin/192354#a

mediamatters.org/research/2012/10/16/contrary-to-right-wing-media-claims-report-conf/190649

mediamatters.org/research/2012/10/16/contrary-to-right-wing-media-claims-report-conf/190649

thenation.com/article/169977/whats-behind-us-embassy-protests-egypt

mediamatters.org/research/2012/10/16/contrary-to-right-wing-media-claims-report-conf/190649

Between the Weekly Standard’s inadvertent blunder and the New York Times article, I think it’s safe to say that the connections between Benghazi, Cairo et al, and the Youtube video have a pretty solid provenance.

Hence, no “smokescreen” by State or the White House.
Click to expand...
Oh boy! Media Matters and The Nation! Well, that settles it, isn’t the Nation the publication that had Melissa Harris Perry’s article on Paul Ryan, the title of I would not even be able to repeat here??
 
DeniseNY said:
Mediamatters?
Click to expand...
There’s also NewsHounds, the difference between Media Matters and Newshounds is newshounds are still basically a bunch of regular joes even if I don’t agree with them, Media Matters has an executive pulling $300,000 a year.

Maybe if Media Matters pulled down some of the things they have been caught doing, slanderous towards others, they might start to make an attempt at credibility but they leave it up even when they are proven wrong.

I might as well say “The Hello Kitty” website is saying something., 👍
 
estesbob said:
in listening to the hearings everyone involved, Democrats included, acknowledged that budget cuts head no impact on Benghazi. They had more security in Bermuda than try did in Benghazi!
Click to expand...
👍 Absolutely, I have heard these points brought up before. You refuted this well, the budget cuts would not have had an effect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top