US Embassy Stormed in Cairo...

[UtahDan]

Is the DSS responsibile for security of Embassy's across the world??

We have heard reports of requests for additional security being denied by the State Dept.


Who is in charge of the Embassy? DSS or State?? Seems to me the State is responsible based on Hilary falling on the sword and all things pointing to them..

Why would DSS's input be so important??

DSS is Diplomatic Security Service. They are a subdivision of the State Department as I understand it, they are charged with the security of the embassies, the materials they contain and the Americans who are attached to the embassy. They also investigate crimes against Americans abroad as I understand it. But they are the people with the nuts and bolts understanding of how you protect an embassy, how you allocate those resources, how you respond to threats, etc.

[Uncle Ted]

I'm so tired of people trying to politicize this tragedy. Who cares if the ex-Seals were part of embassy security or were personal security? It's an insignificant distinction. Just like it doesn't matter whether Obama said the attack was caused by a reaction to a video or was a planned terrorist attack. What happened was terrible. Americans died. Politicizing this in an election season is beyond crass.

Yes, Rmoney saying he wants to kill off Big Bird is much bigger issue. Obama has declared war on a lot of things but Rmoney declaring war on Big Bird crosses the line.

[dabrockster]

DSS is Diplomatic Security Service. They are a subdivision of the State Department as I understand it, they are charged with the security of the embassies, the materials they contain and the Americans who are attached to the embassy. They also investigate crimes against Americans abroad as I understand it. But they are the people with the nuts and bolts understanding of how you protect an embassy, how you allocate those resources, how you respond to threats, etc.

OK. I googled DSS and got Defense Security Services so was confused by your response..

[UtahDan]

Eric Nordstrom, the former RSO in Libya already testified that the security forces were "inappropriately low". He twice sent requests in the past 10 months for additional DSS agents, he wanted a minimum of 5. There were never more than 3 DSS agents stationed in Benghazi at any time simultaneously. The requests were made because Nordstrom and Lt. Col. Wood, head of AFRICOM, learned that fighters were flowing in from the Egyptian border headed to Benghazi. In Tripoli there were three mobile security detachments (DSS) and some special forces under Wood's command, but they State Department wouldn't allow them to be deployed.

Okay, that is interesting. Is there any explanation so far as to why those requests were denied? Who made the decision? Where those resources were allocated instead? It also sounds like he was making the request in response to a general threat as opposed to intelligence about a specific attack, is that right? Maybe the transcript is online somewhere...

At the bottom of this is a decision maker who either (1) didn't appreciate the threat because of insufficient intel (2) didn't appreciate the threat because (s)he didn't understand the intel (s)he was looking at (3) appreciated the threat but in the process of resource allocation took a calculated risk and protected other assets. I think these are really important questions because people lost their lives when the wrong decision was made. Is the suggestion that Sec State made these decisions herself? I think the personality at the bottom of this, how they made their decision, and potentially how they came to hold that position if they are incompetent are all really important. If these questions have already been answered then I guess I just need to be educated. If they haven't, then I have a hard time seeing how this all fits into the "Obama and Clinton are don't know what they are doing and don't care about about American lives" story line.

[UtahDan]

Just read four or five recent articles on this and have concluded the following: (1) there are lots of unanswered questions about what happened and how it was allowed to happen and the State Department is not really being very forthcoming, which is not excusable (2) the hearings were nearly pure politics and were mostly an opportunity for Republican congressmen to get some zingers in, they didn't reveal new information and didn't focus on solving what problems may exist (3) Romney has so far botched his two attempts to capitalize on this (a) his comments immediately after and (b) his criticism in the last debate over semantics that flopped (4) neither candidate is talking about the more important larger issues of how we handled the Arab Spring and whether there is some other approach we should be taking (which seems to be to have a lot to do with the fact that their positions are not easy to distinguish on foreign policy, though neither seems to be taking any serious shot at articulating and larger plan for US foreign policy in the Middle East beyond what we are doing now).

Which leads me to this: predictably both parties are playing politics and/or don't really know what the problem is or how to fix it. Huzzah!

[Surfah]

Okay, that is interesting. Is there any explanation so far as to why those requests were denied? Who made the decision? Where those resources were allocated instead? It also sounds like he was making the request in response to a general threat as opposed to intelligence about a specific attack, is that right? Maybe the transcript is online somewhere...

At the bottom of this is a decision maker who either (1) didn't appreciate the threat because of insufficient intel (2) didn't appreciate the threat because (s)he didn't understand the intel (s)he was looking at (3) appreciated the threat but in the process of resource allocation took a calculated risk and protected other assets. I think these are really important questions because people lost their lives when the wrong decision was made. Is the suggestion that Sec State made these decisions herself? I think the personality at the bottom of this, how they made their decision, and potentially how they came to hold that position if they are incompetent are all really important. If these questions have already been answered then I guess I just need to be educated. If they haven't, then I have a hard time seeing how this all fits into the "Obama and Clinton are don't know what they are doing and don't care about about American lives" story line.

The investigation is still fleshing the rest of this out. There is testimony though from Nordstrom that says he was later told that the security forces in Benghazi were to be kept "artificially low" and Lt. Col. Wood also testified that his request was rebuffed for more security by saying he was asking for the "sun, moon, and the stars". The why is what everyone is trying to figure out right now. And of course who knew about all of this.

[il Padrino Ute]

The investigation is still fleshing the rest of this out. There is testimony though from Nordstrom that says he was later told that the security forces in Benghazi were to be kept "artificially low" and Lt. Col. Wood also testified that his request was rebuffed for more security by saying he was asking for the "sun, moon, and the stars". The why is what everyone is trying to figure out right now. And of course who knew about all of this.

There's an Italian proverb that explains this clearly:

il pesci puzza dalla testa. Translated, the fish stinks from the head.

Obama is in charge. If he'd be truthful and transparent, there would be no unanswered questions.

[Moliere]

I'm so tired of people trying to politicize this tragedy. Who cares if the ex-Seals were part of embassy security or were personal security? It's an insignificant distinction. Just like it doesn't matter whether Obama said the attack was caused by a reaction to a video or was a planned terrorist attack. What happened was terrible. Americans died. Politicizing this in an election season is beyond crass.

This is a huge deal IMO. He was either misleading the American people in an effort to downplay what really happened or he was just plain incompetent. I'm leaning towards the latter.

When a politician screws up this badly, it should be made political. When a foreign policy starts to unravel and show that it's not working, it should be made political. If this isn't made into a political issue it wouldn't be discussed at all and would basically end up being a non-issue. Romney politicizing this event has forced the media to sort of cover it, and the more that gets uncovered the more incompetent the current foreign policy appears to be.

[Uncle Ted]

This is a huge deal IMO. He was either misleading the American people in an effort to downplay what really happened or he was just plain incompetent. I'm leaning towards the latter.

When a politician screws up this badly, it should be made political. When a foreign policy starts to unravel and show that it's not working, it should be made political. If this isn't made into a political issue it wouldn't be discussed at all and would basically end up being a non-issue. Romney politicizing this event has forced the media to sort of cover it, and the more that gets uncovered the more incompetent the current foreign policy appears to be.

Let's give Obama the benefit of the doubt. Maybe Obama and his administration was indeed passing along the best intelligence he had at the time to the American people. Of course, if that was the best intelligence given the facts we know (e.g. these people in these "riots" were showing up with rocket propelled grenades and other military weapons) then our CIA/NSA has really failed us. They have already failed us with Iraq and their "intelligence" on weapons of mass destruction and other BS. If this is the best intelligence that the CIA can give us then we should shut it down immediately. A 5th grader can make up better intelligence than this. I am getting really tired of this "intelligence" and thinking that Americans can't think for themselves.

[The_Douger]

There's an Italian proverb that explains this clearly:

il pesci puzza dalla testa. Translated, the fish stinks from the head.

Obama is in charge. If he'd be truthful and transparent, there would be no unanswered questions.

And the irony of it is that he promised this would be the most transparent presidency in the history of the US.

And it's been anything but that.

[Eddie]

I'm so tired of people trying to politicize this tragedy. Who cares if the ex-Seals were part of embassy security or were personal security? It's an insignificant distinction. Just like it doesn't matter whether Obama said the attack was caused by a reaction to a video or was a planned terrorist attack. What happened was terrible. Americans died. Politicizing this in an election season is beyond crass.

Normally I would tend to agree with you. But Obama politicized this during the last election. Now he has to own it.

Obama told us that the US was perceived as a bully. That he was going to change that perception. He told us that he knew what to do to change the terrorist attacks, and it had to do with being a good neighbor. He went on his tour of apologies, etc.

So when the attack occurs - reports are that there were live feeds being sent to the White House. People, someone within the administration, KNEW that the attack was not an escalation of a protest. It was an attack from the very beginning. But having the US attacked for no reason would mean that Obama is wrong and/or his policy if failing. So instead, he blames the attack on a video - almost seeming to say that the attackers were provoked and a peaceful protest went bad.

This isn't just a tragedy. Sure, it is that too. It was horrible. It was also evidence of a foreign policy failure. Additionally, it was evidence that the administration cannot be trusted to tell the truth. It would be one thing to simply state "no comment until an investigation is completed". But they didn't do that. They told a story that was known to not be true. I suspect, out of fear of the effect it might have on the election.

So you can say you don't want it politicized. But it already was - by the administration - long before the detractors got a hold of the inconsistencies and lies.

[Uncle Ted]

Chris Matthews (10/22/12) on Libya: "Yeah it was about the video. Read a newspaper. Everybody knows it's all about the video. It's all about the video."

[YOUTUBE]Ot-YPcQMNrg[/YOUTUBE]

Someone needs to get Chris some new kool aid. The stuff he is currently drinking is stale.

[dabrockster]

Chris Matthews (10/22/12) on Libya: "Yeah it was about the video. Read a newspaper. Everybody knows it's all about the video. It's all about the video."

[YOUTUBE]Ot-YPcQMNrg[/YOUTUBE]

Someone needs to get Chris some new kool aid. The stuff he is currently drinking is stale.

What a dumbass..

[Surfah]

Chris Matthews (10/22/12) on Libya: "Yeah it was about the video. Read a newspaper. Everybody knows it's all about the video. It's all about the video."

[YOUTUBE]Ot-YPcQMNrg[/YOUTUBE]

Someone needs to get Chris some new kool aid. The stuff he is currently drinking is stale.

Aside from Matthews being an asshat as usual, I am not sure that video is going to dispel any stereotypes with regards to party affiliation.

[Pelado]

Chris Matthews (10/22/12) on Libya: "Yeah it was about the video. Read a newspaper. Everybody knows it's all about the video. It's all about the video."

[YOUTUBE]Ot-YPcQMNrg[/YOUTUBE]

Someone needs to get Chris some new kool aid. The stuff he is currently drinking is stale.

Chris stopped reading articles about Benghazi within a week of the tragedy.