Merged State Department admits there was no protest at Benghazi consulate

[mikedenk]

Sounds like leakers and whistleblowers are starting to come out of the woodwork.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Charles Woods, who is the father of slain Navy Seal in Bengazi, Tyrone Woods, says that Hillary came up to him on the tarmac when the bodies were flown back to the states and said "We will make sure the person who made this film is arrested and procecuted".

Woods says that he has found out that the Obama administration knew what was happening after the first bullet was fired and was sitting in The Situation Room watching people that they could have saved die.

Tyron Woods was located at a CIA office outside of the Embassy and was told to "stand down" and not go in to rescue. He denied these orders and radioed in for backup and went ahead and rushed in to try to save the Ambassitor.

Because of this, Vice President Joe Biden said to Charles Woods at the funeral service loud enough for everyone to hear "Has your son always had the balls of cue balls?" thinking that this somehow was a honorable and respetable thing for crazy uncle Joe to say.

Woods also says that when Obama shook his hand, our president would not look him in the eye.

Anyway, these are the folks you are going to reelect. Kudos.

 

[332nd]

Charles Woods, who is the father of slain Navy Seal in Bengazi, Tyrone Woods, says that Hillary came up to him on the tarmac when the bodies were flown back to the states and said "We will make sure the person who made this film is arrested and procecuted".

Woods says that he has found out that the Obama administration knew what was happening after the first bullet was fired and was sitting in The Situation Room watching people that they could have saved die.

Tyron Woods was located at a CIA office outside of the Embassy and was told to "stand down" and not go in to rescue. He denied these orders and radioed in for backup and went ahead and rushed in to try to save the Ambassitor.

Because of this, Vice President Joe Biden said to Charles Woods at the funeral service loud enough for everyone to hear "Has your son always had the balls of cue balls?" thinking that this somehow was a honorable and respetable thing for crazy uncle Joe to say.

Woods also says that when Obama shook his hand, our president would not look him in the eye.

Anyway, these are the folks you are going to reelect. Kudos.

Kudos on your apparent inability to source anything & your willingness to accept whatever matches your ideology without evidence.

 

[A'isha]

Apparently since the whole emails "smoking gun" has gone up entirely in smoke, right-wingers have moved on to other things in their continuing effort to prove that Obama deliberately didn't stop the Benghazi attack and covered that up.

 

[A'isha]

Found Bill's source.

 

[Meadmaker]

Fathers of recently dead children are not always the best source of accurate information, but this looks really bad.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Charles Woods, who is the father of slain Navy Seal in Bengazi, Tyrone Woods, says that Hillary came up to him on the tarmac when the bodies were flown back to the states and said "We will make sure the person who made this film is arrested and procecuted".

Woods says that he has found out that the Obama administration knew what was happening after the first bullet was fired and was sitting in The Situation Room watching people that they could have saved die.

Tyron Woods was located at a CIA office outside of the Embassy and was told to "stand down" and not go in to rescue. He denied these orders and radioed in for backup and went ahead and rushed in to try to save the Ambassitor.

Because of this, Vice President Joe Biden said to Charles Woods at the funeral service loud enough for everyone to hear "Has your son always had the balls of cue balls?" thinking that this somehow was a honorable and respetable thing for crazy uncle Joe to say.

Woods also says that when Obama shook his hand, our president would not look him in the eye.

Anyway, these are the folks you are going to reelect. Kudos.

Since an all-clear report was received about 45 minutes after the first report of the attack, this account seems pretty implausible.

 

[leftysergeant]

Reuters claims to have emails showing that the state department was informed two hours after that the attack on the diplomatic compund was a terrorist attack and not a protest that got out of hand.



http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE89N02C20121024?irpc=932


If this is true, who's going to be fired?

Nobody. Go learn how military intelligence and information security work. Obama probably knew well before he anoounced it who was behind the attacks, but only an idiot would have released that information.

You never let an enemy know what you know about him until it no longer matters. That simple. Somebody go straighten out the bean counter who thinks he has what it takes to be commander in chief. He would be a threat to national security.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Reuters claims to have emails showing that the state department was informed two hours after that the attack on the diplomatic compund was a terrorist attack and not a protest that got out of hand.



http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE89N02C20121024?irpc=932


If this is true, who's going to be fired?

They initially said it was likely a terrorist attack.

They didn't say it was a protest that got out of hand.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8656265#post8656265

 

[thaiboxerken]

They initially said it was likely a terrorist attack.

They didn't say it was a protest that got out of hand.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8656265#post8656265

Not good enough. Conservatives like the "shoot first, investigate later" tactic. A few wars never are a bad thing, in GOP land.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

There's a limit to which those in charge can claim, "we got bad information".

Did anyone in charge (I assume you mean in the Obama administration) say "We got bad information"?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, when you find you have to make up fake quotations, it's pretty good evidence that you might be arguing against a strawman position.

ETA: Actually here it's more as if you're making a criticism based on straw "facts". You're criticizing the Obama administration for what they did in a fictional version of what happened.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Not good enough. Conservatives like the "shoot first, investigate later" tactic. A few wars never are a bad thing, in GOP land.

That sounds like the only criticism being levelled here. Obama and his administration failed to react with overly strong statements before they had all the information.

Oh for the days when our Decider would just decide, whether or not he had all the pertinent information!

 

[Ranb]

Fox News claims embassy denied help during attack.

Fox News is claiming that the White House had real time communication during the 9/11/12 attack on the US embassy in Benghazi.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-for-help-during-benghazi-attack-sources-say/

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.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ng-benghazi-attack-sources-say/#ixzz2AYMAty3q

Not everyone agrees.

CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Youngblood, though, denied the claims that requests for support were turned down.

"We can say with confidence that the Agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi," she said. "Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.

I am not able to find much more info from other news sources.

Ranb

 

[theprestige]

So. The Agency was aware that the embassy was being attacked, and the Agency was aware that aid was needed. Indeed, the Agency "reacted quickly" to provide the needed aid...

... And somehow the result of this prompt awareness and quick reaction resulted in no reinforcements, no ground support, no air support, four dead, and the site still unsecured several days later when CNN reporters arrived on the scene.

Either the entire thing happened so fast that the Agency didn't have time to react--even "quickly"--before it was over, or the Agency had no idea what was going on until it was too late to do anything, or the Agency simply had no resources available and "reacted quickly to aid our colleagues" is simply a euphemism for "watched helplessly as our colleagues fought and died".

 

[SezMe]

theprestige, suppose, for the sake of discussion, that the CIA did respond immediately, where "respond" means getting actual troops/forces/resources/whatever on the ground and in a position to be effective. How long would that take compared to how long the attack itself took place?

 

[Meadmaker]

Did anyone in charge (I assume you mean in the Obama administration) say "We got bad information"?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, when you find you have to make up fake quotations, it's pretty good evidence that you might be arguing against a strawman position.

ETA: Actually here it's more as if you're making a criticism based on straw "facts". You're criticizing the Obama administration for what they did in a fictional version of what happened.

"We got bad information" isn't an actual quote on this topic. It's an example of something that someone in charge might say after he made a decision that turned out badly. He might defend himself saying that he couldn't do any better because he was just going on the information he had. It's a weak excuse because if you are in charge, part of your job is to get good information.

Some things like it have been said by administration officials about this event.. See for example the article quoted in post number 22 in this thread.

The reality is that the impression given by administration officials, especially Ambassador Rice but also including Hilary Clinton and the President himself, was that the events in Cairo and the events in Benghazi were comparable, probably connected, and somehow related to a film. That's not exactly a scandal, but it makes them look stupid.

ETA: If the father is to be believed, it's even worse than just looking stupid. If the Secretary of State really said that to the father of Tyrone Woods it would suggest a certain obsession that may have led them away from an accurate understanding of events.

Frankly, I think it's entirely possible that Mr. Woods is just plain wrong. Death of close relatives, especially children, even adult children, tends to cause people to go just a bit crazy. It's entirely possible that the father is simply spouting fantasies or half truths that have gotten mixed up in his grief stricken brain.

Politically, though, it's trouble even if the guy has completely lost his marbles and can't tell truth from fantasy. Even if that's true, a slain hero's father is going on the television saying these things. You can't attack his credibility without looking like a total swine, and if you don't attack his credibility, you look like a total idiot.

 

[theprestige]

theprestige, suppose, for the sake of discussion, that the CIA did respond immediately, where "respond" means getting actual troops/forces/resources/whatever on the ground and in a position to be effective. How long would that take compared to how long the attack itself took place?

That sounds like a vote for "watched helplessly while our colleagues fought and died" to me.

But I'm sure that in the days, weeks, months, or years to come, the CIA will surely share with us the details of what resources they had available to them, and what "reacted quickly" truly means in the context of what actually happened, beyond basic CYA statements to the press.

ETA: I mean, we know what the outcome of the situation was. And we now know what the CIA claims to have done about the situation. Obviously Ms. Youngblood's statement shouldn't be interpreted as "we solved the problem". The problem--obviously--wasn't solved; the Ambassador is dead. So Ms. Youngblood's statement must be interpreted as "we did the best we could to solve the problem." Well, okay. What remains to be seen is, what was the problem, and what was the best the CIA could do.

"Responded quickly" implies that the CIA actually did something. But judging from the outcome, it sure seems like nobody did anything at all. The best possible interpretation is that there was no opportunity to do anything--that's clearly what you're implying. Well, okay again. According to you, what Ms. Youngblood means when she says "responded quickly" is "there was nothing we could do".

There's really not a lot of wiggle room here. Either the CIA had the resources to solve the problem, and applied those resources diligently, and still failed, as is bound to happen from time to time; Or the CIA had the resources to solve the problem, but contrary to Ms. Youngblood's claim, didn't apply them diligently; Or the CIA didn't have the resources, and Ms. Youngblood's claim that the Agency "responded quickly" is pure buck-passing CYA, since the Agency's speed and quality of response was actually irrelevant to the outcome.

 

[Scopedog]

It could also mean their actions prevented greater loss of life. It could also mean the aid was intended to aid different colleagues than the ones that died. It could also mean to aid the colleagues in doing something more important than preventing the loss of their lives.

 

[Checkmite]

So. The Agency was aware that the embassy was being attacked, and the Agency was aware that aid was needed. Indeed, the Agency "reacted quickly" to provide the needed aid...

... And somehow the result of this prompt awareness and quick reaction resulted in no reinforcements, no ground support, no air support, four dead, and the site still unsecured several days later when CNN reporters arrived on the scene.

Right, because the US has "reinforcements, ground support, and air support" just hanging around their embassies in case of attacks like this one. Everyone who's seen movies knows this.

 

[Scopedog]

Right, because the US has "reinforcements, ground support, and air support" just hanging around their embassies in case of attacks like this one. Everyone who's seen movies knows this.

There were supposedly AC-130s an hour away in Italy. We know definitively the administration has no qualms about crossing international borders with impunity.