Merged State Department admits there was no protest at Benghazi consulate

[Bill Thompson]

Bill, was Beck the primary source for this post as ANTPogo claims? Knowing that Beck is a pathological liar, did you check other accounts of the scene? If so, which ones? If not, why not?

I don't know. I have ANTPogo blocked. In the past she has spent a great deal of energy to support something that she knew was untrue. So, I enjoy being here a lot more now that I have blocked her.

If you are talking about Tyrone Wood's dad, I heard him interviewed on the radio twice with two different people doing the interviews. Since it was Wood's own words coming out of his own mouth (I heard this from his voice, not Becks), it doesn't mean a damn thing whose show he was on.

Your logic is Non Sequitur. Your logic (Woods was on Becks show, since Beck is a liar, it was all a lie) is faulty and shows a desprite grasping-at-straws attempt.

By the way, Woods kept saying that what he was telling was not political. So the show's format does not matter.

If ANTPogo is trying to say that since it was on Beck's show it was all a fabrication, well, this is why I have her blocked. In the past she has spent a great deal of energy to support something that she knew was untrue. So, I enjoy being here a lot more now that I have blocked her. People who value winning over being truthful are not worth my time.

Hey, I just thought of something. She is kind of like our President in the debates.

 

[Cavemonster]

Don't you mean he has not done anything right ever?

Except for those lavish parties while our sons and daughters lay dying in combat. Those were wooooooooonderful !!

It is funny that you mention the news media. 'Member the body count? 'Memba that? Come on, you 'memba. When W was Commander in Chief, all your wonderful news media was slamming the wars by having a running body count nightly. Ah but now that we have a Democrat in office, that has stopped. Ah, but the body count in Afganistan has increased 4 times as much. So don't tell me the media is biased.... unless you mean biased in favor of Obama.

War is only bad when a Republican is in office according to our media. 'memba Cindy Sheehan? Come on, you did not forget her, did you? 'Memba her? Where did she go? Well she is still out protesting the war. But now that W is gone, she is just crazy. When W was there, we all felt her pain.

I understand a passionate response to the ongoing troop presence in Afghanistan, but Romney has agreed to the same pullout date as Obama, so I'm not sure what you feel would be accomplished in your aims by giving the next 4 years to him.

 

[Kestrel]

I understand a passionate response to the ongoing troop presence in Afghanistan, but Romney has agreed to the same pullout date as Obama, so I'm not sure what you feel would be accomplished in your aims by giving the next 4 years to him.

For most of the campaign, Romney was saying that the US should never have given a pullout date. It's only recently that he started agreeing with Obama on this issue.

I don't fault people for not understanding Romney's stance on the issues. He changes his positions so frequently, its hard to keep up.

 

[Newtons Bit]

I'd like to see some kind of tangible evidence for either of these assertions.

How about CNN. From the article I linked earlier:

defense official provided more context on Panetta's comments about the decision-making involved in not sending U.S. troops to the consulate being attacked in Benghazi.

He said there was a drone aloft but not directly over the area at the time the attack began.

He said the drone was redirected and arrived in time to record some of the attack. But he described what the drone saw as "looking down, seeing a bunch of buildings and fires, a lot of chaos on the ground."

 

[Meadmaker]

I started out with the goal of quoting all the posts in this thread that made sense and there were just too many for the effort to be worthwhile. My apologies to many people who made well written posts in defense of the obvious.

In the whole history of made up BS issues for partisan political purposes this one may be the most bogus. If enough, partisans parrot the same nonsense for long enough does this win votes for their side? I don't know but my sad guess is yes.

Guess what? Bad stuff happens, and whether we elect a Republican or a Democrat bad stuff will continue to happen. When 241 Marines were killed in Lebanon was Reagan to blame? Was Bush to blame for 9-11?

This thread is an embarrassment to the JREF forum. Alleged skeptics, whose partisan belief structures have led them to support the craziest of crazy Republican anti-Obama narratives.

In the immediate aftermath of a horrific event, the administration didn't know exactly what happened and a high ranking individual made a statement that was arguably wrong, although it wasn't even technically wrong since she never claimed absolute knowledge of what had gone on. Big friggin deal.

If you don't like Obama. Don't vote for him. If you disagree with his policies make arguments against those policies. But if you want to pretend you are a skeptic avoid buying into the Fox News/Republican spin machine to support your choices unless there is some actual evidence to support the spin.

I don't think it can be dismissed so easily.

The administration itself made this story a big deal. Before it turned into a partisan circus, the President and Secretary of State both made public statements about it. The President sent a spokeperson to make the rounds of the Sunday talk shows as a way of explaining it to the public. The President and Secretary of State both made a public appearnce when the bodies were returned to America. The President made this one of the major elements of a personal address to the United Nations. You can't say that Fox News and the right wing generated all the interest in the story.

The problem for the administration is that all the time they were hyping this story, they were saying film, film, film. Even on those occasions when they referred to an organized attack, it was in the context of the film and an out of control protest related to the film. That wasn't Fox News keeping the "film" angle alive.

There is no evidence that the attacks in Benghazi were motivated by or connected with the release of the film in any way, but the administration cited that in connection with the attacks repeatedly. I think that's a legitimate issue.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Or whether or not they were able to identify any valid targets. Shooting up innocent people is a bad thing. You don't even know if there was an armed drone, but you think an arm drone would have helped?

What do people think could have been done with the gunship? With a missile? Shoot the bad guys right? Who were the bad guys? How could we identify them? Were they around long enough to even be targeted? It seems people are starting with the premise 'the administration choose not to help because they could have done something to help' and working backwards. Hell, scratch that, the premise 'they could have done something to help' at that point is enough of an assumption. What they could have done is had a full security detail always with the ambassador, but that's something to have been done well before any of this started.

One of the sources that some folks here are furiously trying to deny states that one of the SEALs on the ground was radioing in targets with a laser target designator and was requesting air support.

You are on the right track though. The only thing that makes any sense in this entire charade is the administration wanting to avoid all collateral damage. Sacrificing American lives in order to avoid a diplomatic crises probably wouldn't go over well with the electorate though, which would explain why they're stonewalling for now.

 

[A'isha]

The administration itself made this story a big deal. Before it turned into a partisan circus, the President and Secretary of State both made public statements about it.

Are you suggesting that the President and Secretary of State shouldn't have said anything about this?

Plus, it was Romney that made this a partisan issue before the main administration statements were made. See this timeline here.

The President sent a spokeperson to make the rounds of the Sunday talk shows as a way of explaining it to the public. The President and Secretary of State both made a public appearnce when the bodies were returned to America. The President made this one of the major elements of a personal address to the United Nations.

Because a US Ambassador had just been killed! Again, why would you expect any of the above not to have occurred under any administration?

You can't say that Fox News and the right wing generated all the interest in the story.

They certainly generated all the "controversy" about it.

The problem for the administration is that all the time they were hyping this story, they were saying film, film, film. Even on those occasions when they referred to an organized attack, it was in the context of the film and an out of control protest related to the film.

No, they didn't. With the exception of Rice's statements, they were always very careful to say that the investigation was still ongoing, and didn't make any definitive statements about the film in the context of the Benghazi attack specifically. When the film was discussed, it was always in the wider context of all the other protests and attacks that occurred, which absolutely were connected to the film (such as the attack on the Cairo Embassy).

There is no evidence that the attacks in Benghazi were motivated by or connected with the release of the film in any way

Wrong.

 

[Newtons Bit]

There's your problem.

What the ?

 

[A'isha]

What the ?

You say you don't believe the administration because you think it "claims that this was a protest run amok". And that's a false premise, because both what we know about the attack and what the administration has said about the attack is a lot more complicated than that.

EDIT: This is what people mean when they accuse the right of politicizing this. It's not enough for them that the administration reacted erratically to a confused situation and conflicting intelligence. No, the right has to believe that Obama knew exactly what was going on as the attack itself was still happening, decided to deliberately hang Stevens and the others out to dry, then tried to cover it all up in order to support a predetermined narrative that the video (and only the video) was responsible, because everyone knows that Obama is weak on foreign policy and wants to see US influence and power diminished because that's what he's all about.

 

[Cylinder]

They certainly generated all the "controversy" about it.

No they didn't. CNN went to the freaking compound weeks after the attack and retreived the ambassador's diary - left at the scene and seemingly missed by the intensive invesrigation. That more than anything led to the disclosure that there was no protest. In fact, the administration didn't feel the need to notify Fox News of the hastily-arranged telecon by the State Department admitting there was no protest on the eve of sworn testimony before Congress.

CBS along with Fox News was chalenging Carney's assertion of a spontaneous attack. It was CBS that asked Carney "wasn't it the President that shot first and aimed later?"

 

[A'isha]

It was CBS that asked Carney "wasn't it the President that shot first and aimed later?"

It was ABC's Jake Tapper. And in his reply, Carney reiterated the same thing he said to Tapper three days after the attack itself: that there were protests all over the region in response to the video, but when it came to the attack in Benghazi, "We certainly don't know."

The idea that the Obama administration constantly hammered on the video being the actual (and only) cause of the Benghazi attacks from day one is flat out false.

And you keep refusing to back up your claim about Ambassador Stevens being dragged through the streets. Why is that, Cylinder?

 

[davefoc]

I don't think it can be dismissed so easily.

The administration itself made this story a big deal. Before it turned into a partisan circus, the President and Secretary of State both made public statements about it. The President sent a spokeperson to make the rounds of the Sunday talk shows as a way of explaining it to the public. The President and Secretary of State both made a public appearnce when the bodies were returned to America. The President made this one of the major elements of a personal address to the United Nations. You can't say that Fox News and the right wing generated all the interest in the story.

The problem for the administration is that all the time they were hyping this story, they were saying film, film, film. Even on those occasions when they referred to an organized attack, it was in the context of the film and an out of control protest related to the film. That wasn't Fox News keeping the "film" angle alive.

There is no evidence that the attacks in Benghazi were motivated by or connected with the release of the film in any way, but the administration cited that in connection with the attacks repeatedly. I think that's a legitimate issue.

I genuinely appreciate this response and your effort to see both sides of this situation. ANTpogo made a pretty good response to some of the details of your post.

My view here though, is that there is a coordinated effort to exploit what is an unfortunate, horrific event for partisan political purposes regardless of the facts. It is silly to expect that any administration will perfectly protect the US against these kind of incidents. I have exactly zero doubt that if this incident had happened under a Republican president none of this stupid analysis would have been coming out of Fox or the usual band of Republican propagandists.

I wonder exactly how this pile of BS got going. First Romney callously attempts to exploit the situation for political purposes and looks like an idiot for doing it and then the Republican spin machine is turned on and starts spitting out its BS. Was this whole thing cooked up by the Republicans and they just pushed Romney out there to get it going or did this nonsense get going as a way of reducing the damage to Romney did to himself when he went off half cocked?

I will concede that there is something to the point you are making in that a review of exactly what went on and how the situation could have been handled better is a good thing. But that is not what has been going on by the people pushing this issue. This is a concerted effort to create anti-Obama propaganda with only the slightest connection to reality. If Obama had ordered a C-130 attack and tens of Libyan soldiers and American defenders had been killed who were fighting the assailants how would that have gone down? It seems pretty obvious that a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking is going on here without much need to tie the ideas to reality.

 

[A'isha]

I will concede that there is something to the point you are making in that a review of exactly what went on and how the situation could have been handled better is a good thing. But that is not what has been going on by the people pushing this issue.

Exactly. There's almost no criticism along the lines of "this is where things broke down in the response to what happened, and here's what needs to be fixed to make sure it doesn't happen again". It's simply all attempts to figure out how to make this look as bad as possible politically for Obama, with a side-order of "see how much Obama loves Muslim terrorists and hates America and our troops?"

 

[Newtons Bit]

You say you don't believe the administration because you think it "claims that this was a protest run amok". And that's a false premise, because both what we know about the attack and what the administration has said about the attack is a lot more complicated than that.

I'm taking members of the administration at their word. They have said it was a protest and NOT a planned attack.

September 13 -- Jay Carney:
"The protests we're seeing around the region are in reaction to this movie. They are not directly in reaction to any policy of the United States or the government of the United States or the people of the United States."

September 16 -- Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, on CNN's "State of the Union" with Candy Crowley:
"There was a hateful video that was disseminated on the Internet. It had nothing to do with the United States government, and it's one that we find disgusting and reprehensible. It's been offensive to many, many people around the world. That sparked violence in various parts of the world, including violence directed against Western facilities including our embassies and consulates."
On CBS' "Face the Nation," Rice also said that, "We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned."

Source

Given this, why would they (the administration) have any concern whatsoever about an ambush of hi-tech US planes from small surface-to-air missiles? Or were Carney and Rice just lying here?

 

[davefoc]

...
EDIT: This is what people mean when they accuse the right of politicizing this. It's not enough for them that the administration reacted erratically to a confused situation and conflicting intelligence. No, the right has to believe that Obama knew exactly what was going on as the attack itself was still happening, decided to deliberately hang Stevens and the others out to dry, then tried to cover it all up in order to support a predetermined narrative that the video (and only the video) was responsible, because everyone knows that Obama is weak on foreign policy and wants to see US influence and power diminished because that's what he's all about.

Well said. This is a a precise description of what the situation is.

 

[A'isha]

Or were Carney and Rice just lying here?

Note how Carney was talking about "protests around the region", which were, undeniably, in response to the video. When Tapper pressed Carney on September 14th about Benghazi specifically, Carney responded with "we certainly don't know".

Rice was working off of a CIA intelligence report.

And, the link notes, "started as a protest over the video" and "was a pre-planned attack" are not the only two options - there were indications that it was still an opportunistic terrorist attack, even if a protest against the video was not the thing that provided the opportunity.

 

[Checkmite]

How about CNN. From the article I linked earlier:

So, one drone - military, not CIA - which was not launched from nearby, but rather already in flight and redirected from some other area, and which even while on the scene was unable to clearly identify any useful military targets?

Where's the evidence of there being a ship or base nearby where an actual armed drone could've been scrambled from?

 

[Newtons Bit]

So, one drone - military, not CIA - which was not launched from nearby, but rather already in flight and redirected from some other area, and which even while on the scene was unable to clearly identify any useful military targets?

Where's the evidence of there being a ship or base nearby where an actual armed drone could've been scrambled from?

Could you cut the appeals to perfection? The CIA has the same drones as the miltary and arms them with Hellfire missiles. I don't know if this was a special drone from a special base that used unarmed only drones and for some mystical reason lacked any capability for arming them. I don't have all the answers. The administration does. But they're not answering.

There's also a large naval air base in Sicily. That's 500 miles away. I find it incredibly hard to believe that a jet could not be armed and sent to Libya in 7 hours.

 

[A'isha]

Could you cut the appeals to perfection? The CIA has the same drones as the miltary and arms them with Hellfire missiles. I don't know if this was a special drone from a special base that used unarmed only drones and for some mystical reason lacked any capability for arming them. I don't have all the answers. The administration does. But they're not answering.

How many Hellfires do you think this drone was carrying, if it was armed?

There's also a large naval air base in Sicily. That's 500 miles away. I find it incredibly hard to believe that a jet could not be armed and sent to Libya in 7 hours.

I find it incredibly hard to believe that anyone thinks airstrikes on the city of Benghazi would have helped one bit in this particular situation. All you need to do is look back at the history of such strikes during the Iraq occupation, such as how and why they were used in cities and what the effects of those strikes were.

EDIT: Or ask yourself why neither Egypt, Israel, or the US started bombing when this happened.

 

[SezMe]

I heard this morning that Special Forces members are resigning because of this event.

Source? How many? If it's a few disgruntled out of, what, tens of thousands of special forces, should that bear on the presidential election?