US Embassy Stormed in Cairo...

[Uncle Ted]

[YOUTUBE]DqpJJwJPwNo[/YOUTUBE]

[dabrockster]

Sunday's talk shows were filled with people calling out Obama and this Administration on this.. I like Portman's comments the best...

Senator McCain:

You know, this administration is very good at touting and giving all the details like when they got Bin Laden. But now, we know that there were tapes, recordings inside the consulate during this fight, and they've gotten—they came—the F.B.I. finally got in and took those, and now they're classified as "top secret." Why would they be top secret? So the president went on various shows, despite what he said he said in the Rose Garden, about terrorist acts, he went on several programs, including "The View" including "Letterman" including before the U.N., where he continued to refer, days later, many days later, to this as a spontaneous demonstration because of a hateful video. We know that is patently false. What did the president know? When did he know it? And what did he do about it?

McCain said for "literally days and days" the White House "told the American people something that had no basis in fact whatsoever."

Senator Rob Portman

This is not about politics. This is about a huge national security issue that affects all of us and there was a shocking breakdown, operationally, not to have the security there in the first place. And then not to respond to these guys, in their pleas for help for 7 hours, during a firefight. It’s unbelievable and now, we are hearing that the president of the United States, based on his own words, issued a directive immediately after he found out about the firefight, saying that he wanted to be sure those people on the ground were safe and they were getting what they needed. It didn't happen. This means either that the president's order was not followed, which would be a breakdown in terms of the White House procedure, or, it means the order wasn’t issued. We need to find out about this, it is not about politics, it is a very serious situation. After the fact, of course, there’s also been a lot of confusion about what happened and why it happened.

Senator Ron Johnson

Chris, the American people have the right to know. And that is what they are demanding here in Wisconsin. I mean, let's face it. What was the president doing during those 7 hours? Did he give that directive? Or didn't he? Did Leon Panetta directly defy his directive? I mean, what happened? Who sent out, who sent Ambassador Rice out five days later when they knew it was a terrorist attack, that it was pre-planned, sent her out on the Sunday talk shows to say that in fact this was a spontaneous reaction to of course the video?

Virginia governor Bob McDonnell

The mishandling of the situation in Benghazi. No answers, no transparency, 45 days after the fact is a great concern. Either the president gave an order that was disobeyed by the Secretary of Defense to provide support in Benghazi or he didn't, and I think people want answers before this election on that, so that's what's going to determine the outcome.

Reince Priebus

There are two things people are talking about. They’re talking about the economy, and they're talking about what happened in Benghazi. Why after a cry for help to Leon Panetta and after the President gave a directive to protect – he claims he gave a correct directive to protect those people Panetta got a cry for help. Panetta now claims that he didn't – he told the personnel to stand down. So either the President didn't give the directive or the president isn't being truthful or perhaps Leon Panetta acted as commander in chief. That’s what -- this is the subject right now that people are talking about, and the economy.

Carly Fiorina

On the issue of trust, what is going on with regard to Libya? I mean here we have an extraordinary thing where the President comes out on Friday and says I directed that everything possible should be done to aid our embassy under attack. That attack went on for seven hours, we now know that Secretary Of Defense saying he denied requests for help over that seven hours. Where is the leadership? But it's a trust issue, it’s a trust issue.

[TexTechCoug]

The issue with Benghazi was turned into a lot more than it likely warranted by the current administration.

If you come out and say that security was inadequate and hat it was an Al Qaeda attack the situation comes and goes.

I think in an attempt to protect the narrative that Al Qaeda is on the run since Obama personally executed ObL the Axelrod brain trust concocted the stupid youtube story.

Telling a lie repeatedly did nothing but create a controversy that will linger.

The killings and the lack of response are certainly a big deal, but the subsequent storytelling and cover p have amplified the problem.

[Pelado]

‘YOU HAVE THE BLOOD OF AN AMERICAN HERO ON YOUR HANDS’

Isn’t this a story – a gigantic story?

Of course. But we fear that ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, The New York Times and The Washington Post will only choose to realize how obvious this is after Nov. 6. Then it will come to them – spontaneously, we’re sure.

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/...-hero-on-your/

[myboynoah]

Interesting CIA outline of how things went down.

CIA rushed to save diplomats as Libya attack was underway

They say that there were actually two attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi. The first attack took place on the consular during the evening of Sept 11. The next attack, a mortar attack which killed the two former SEALS, didn't take place until around 5:00 am the next morning when CIA forces were trying to evacuate their annex building which is located about a mile from the consulate (I recall this being reported elsewhere).

The information does not address the main source of political controversy surrounding the siege: the shifting assessments offered by Obama administration officials over whether the assault was a protest that turned violent or a planned terrorist attack.

But officials reiterated that the initial intelligence was fragmentary and often contradictory. They said talking points for members of Congress and senior administration officials did not discuss possible links between the attackers and al-Qaeda because the information was classified.

“It wasn’t until after the points were used in public that people reconciled contradictory information and assessed there probably wasn’t a protest around the time of the attack,” the senior U.S. intelligence official said.

Nothing about a mortar attack at a totally different site 7-8 hours after the initial assault on the consulate looks at all like a protest turned violent. That's a planned attack. What is so difficult about that?

Also, are we to believe that CIA witheld classified intelligence from senior administration officials about possible links to al-Qaeda? Really?

Also, how soon after the attack did CIA determine that "there probably wasn’t a protest around the time of the attack?"

Sounds like an intelligence failure by the desk jockeys back in Langley to me. Or, we still aren't hearing the whole story. I have a hard time believing that CIA didn't include the possible al-Qaeda link in briefings to President Obama and his National Security staff.

[Uncle Ted]

Also, are we to believe that CIA witheld classified intelligence from senior administration officials about possible links to al-Qaeda? Really?

Also, how soon after the attack did CIA determine that "there probably wasn’t a protest around the time of the attack?"

Sounds like an intelligence failure by the desk jockeys back in Langley to me. Or, we still aren't hearing the whole story. I have a hard time believing that CIA didn't include the possible al-Qaeda link in briefings to President Obama and his National Security staff.

The original 9/11 was an intelligence a communication failure by the NSA. After the 9/11 commission it was determined that agencies were not talking as well as they should be. The way intelligence information gets from those who have it (ie. NSA, CIA) to those that need it so they can act (ie. the military) is a joke. In short, the intelligence agencies have information officials posted at the military intelligence centers. The military has to make a very detailed request for the information they need. If the request is not detailed enough then they may get back nothing. Ideally the military would be given direct access to the NSA and CIA databases so the could do a google-like search and drill down on the information they are looking for and need to take immediate action.

One of the reasons the agencies doesn't give the military direct access is it has huge cyber security issues. They recruit largely high school graduates and spend large amounts of money to train them to do IT. After the military trains these IT specialists they can get paid more in the private sector so they leave as soon as they put in their minimal service time or retire with a full pension after 20 years or whatever. In addition, the military faces huge cyber security threats on their IT systems. One of the biggest problems is these relatively young recruits bringing in World of Warcraft (or some other popular video game) on memory sticks and playing it on the military IT systems. Of course, these video games could be loaded with malware that could be designed to target the military IT systems.

Another potential problem right now is the "noise level" is most likely very high. The United States has been using drones to take out targets on a "kill list". Of course, when going after these targets (including American targets) we also kill babies and other civilians as well. I am willing to bet this is keeping the terrorist chatter (and other noise) quite high and all over the map. Sorting out what is an actual threat must be a nightmare right now. The CIA/NSA has to digest and prepare a brief of the top issues for the president and state department. If the noise level is high then it may be difficult decide if it is an actual terrorist attack and needs the president's/cabinet's attention. Of course, if Obama attended the intelligence meetings maybe more detail would have been given that he could have acted on as commander and chief.

It all sounds like government grade work as usual. Most likely the CIA didn't withhold information but no one asked the right questions.

[calicoug]

I agree with you. I don't think President Obama would sit idly by while Americans died. I do think he would seek to not be real transparent about it in the aftermath for political expediency as would any other politician on this earth, but I am convinced he is every bit as honorable a human being as you, I or Mitt Romney.

I find this incident to be offensive in how it is being leveraged for political gain with the various comments from the families of the deceased. I dislike President Obama as much as most here, except for IPU perhaps , but it bothers me and feels cheap to me when we start using how a grieving parent "thinks" the President felt when he met with them to offer the condolances of a grateful nation. Here is a newsflash...most members of the armed forces and their families tend to be conservative and have the same partisan desires at this time of year as you and I.

Well said.

I have no idea what went wrong. Something clearly did- but I think the blustering by conservative blogs and media is way off the mark. I do not believe for an instant that Obama- or any other American president- would intentionally allow Americans (let alone the US ambassador, especially one so close to his Secretary of State) to die. That's just dumb.

I have also seen zero evidence of a "stand down" order from Obama or anyone else. The CIA denied that happened, and the conclusion drawn from conservative circles was that the "CIA threw Obama under the bus!" That conclusion presupposes only two alternative scenarios which both have the same underlying fact- 1) CIA did issue a stand down order and is lying; or 2) someone else issued a stand down order and the CIA threw Obama under the bus. Seems there is at least one more option out there...

[Goatnapper'96]

Well said.

I have no idea what went wrong. Something clearly did- but I think the blustering by conservative blogs and media is way off the mark. I do not believe for an instant that Obama- or any other American president- would intentionally allow Americans (let alone the US ambassador, especially one so close to his Secretary of State) to die. That's just dumb.

I have also seen zero evidence of a "stand down" order from Obama or anyone else. The CIA denied that happened, and the conclusion drawn from conservative circles was that the "CIA threw Obama under the bus!" That conclusion presupposes only two alternative scenarios which both have the same underlying fact- 1) CIA did issue a stand down order and is lying; or 2) someone else issued a stand down order and the CIA threw Obama under the bus. Seems there is at least one more option out there...

Really, the cheerleader has a positive perspective on Obama's role in this? I'm shocked I tell you!

[Donuthole]

http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/benghazi...176736441.html

[SCcoug]

The drip of information continues.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-...sulate-attack/

[il Padrino Ute]

http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/benghazi...176736441.html

What is the value of 4 American lives compared to the reelection of an incompetent imbecile?

[Eddie]

Well said.

I have no idea what went wrong. Something clearly did- but I think the blustering by conservative blogs and media is way off the mark. I do not believe for an instant that Obama- or any other American president- would intentionally allow Americans (let alone the US ambassador, especially one so close to his Secretary of State) to die. That's just dumb.

I have also seen zero evidence of a "stand down" order from Obama or anyone else. The CIA denied that happened, and the conclusion drawn from conservative circles was that the "CIA threw Obama under the bus!" That conclusion presupposes only two alternative scenarios which both have the same underlying fact- 1) CIA did issue a stand down order and is lying; or 2) someone else issued a stand down order and the CIA threw Obama under the bus. Seems there is at least one more option out there...

Obama says that he issued a "help our people as much as you can" order (or something to that effect).

If he did - why not just produce evidence of that order and then tell everyone to just STFU?

It's silly that this is dragging on as it has. The appearance of a coverup has folks foaming at the mouth and nothing is being given to change that appearance.

[dabrockster]

Additional footage of interview and Obama avoiding the question.


I just don't get it? He takes such a precaution in calling it a Terrorist attack but allows his staff to go off on Sunday News calling it a "Protest etc"??



http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journal...CBS-Covered-Up


OH. And WHY did they sit on this???

[Uncle Ted]

Harry says there is nothing to see here and, therefore, no to a committee investigation in the senate is necessary...

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, reiterated his opposition to forming a select committee to investigate the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Libya in a sharply-worded letter to Republican senators, writing Nov. 16 that “I refuse to allow the Senate to be used as a venue for baseless partisan attacks.”

[...]

“The elections are over; it is time to put an end to the partisan politicization of national security and begin working together to strengthen our efforts to dismantle and destroy the terrorist networks that threaten us,” Mr. Reid wrote. “The intentional politicization of this national tragedy over the last several weeks risks undermining the proud tradition of nonpartisanship that the Senate’s national security committees have sustained over many decades.”

I guess that the unfortunate death of four Americans, including an US Ambassador, in the 9-11 "spontaneous protest" is no big deal to Reid and we really should be focused on actual terrorist attacks instead.

[Pelado]

“I refuse to allow the Senate to be used as a venue for baseless partisan attacks.”

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/we...--are-terrible