Merged State Department admits there was no protest at Benghazi consulate

[SezMe]

So don't tell me the media is biased.... unless you mean biased in favor of Obama.

Broadly speaking, the media are not very biased. There is, of course, the dominance of the right on talk radio. There is also some observable bias toward the left in the print media - which is rapidly declining in power in the internet age.

These are not my opinions, they are the result of media analyses.

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 think you are looking at the wrong cause-and-effect. During W, Sheehan was new, cranky, and pull some misguided stunts. Thus, she was a valid media story - one that was greatly inflated by the right-wing railing at her.

So she had her 15 minutes of fame, then faded from the scene. She made a fool of herself running for political office and even that did not generate much interest.

So she was old hat and no longer newsworthy. She faded away.

This sequence had nothing to do with Bush and Obama. Or media bias. It is the natural progression of almost all media stories.

Dial back the outrage, Bill.

 

[Newtons Bit]

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

The old predator carries two. Which is one more than what would have been necessary to take out the mortar team that ultimately killed the SEALs.

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

The wikipedia article you linked explains why: Egypt had troops on the ground capable of evacuating the embassy staff. You're comparing apples to dogs. It's non sequitur.

 

[SezMe]

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

The Republicans, lead by Bill Thompson, are determined to ruin the USA. But, I'm not making a political statement.

 

[Ziggurat]

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

Because there were security forces on the ground who could contain the situation.

Did we have that in Benghazi? No, we did not. Did Libya have that? No, they did not. That is in no way an equivalent scenario.

People were demanding to know why air support wasn't sent because that's the only kind of support that could have been sent. And it's more than just drones. We could have had an AC-130 Spectre on target within a few hours. If you're not familiar with what those are, well, look it up: they're perfect for this sort of fight. They can provide LOTS of precise, directed fire at ground targets, for an extended period of time.

 

[A'isha]

The old predator carries two. Which is one more than what would have been necessary to take out the mortar team that ultimately killed the SEALs.

That's making a whole lot of assumptions, especially in hindsight.

Seriously, of all the criticisms of the administration's handling of this, "Obama didn't order an immediate airstrike on the attackers!" is probably the most mind-boggling to me.

 

[SezMe]

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.

Which scene? And what is the timeline of the entries in the diary?

These are genuine questions; I'm not making a point. It would seen that the answers to these questions would have no small bearing on what actually transpired.

 

[theprestige]

That's making a whole lot of assumptions, especially in hindsight.

Seriously, of all the criticisms of the administration's handling of this, "Obama didn't order an immediate airstrike on the attackers!" is probably the most mind-boggling to me.

Why did Obama allow the Benghazi consulate to end up in a position where the only two options available were "immediate airstrike" and "watch and do nothing"?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

Etch-a-sketch Romney said nothing except, "Me too", in the foreign policy debate.

 

[Ziggurat]

Which scene? And what is the timeline of the entries in the diary?

These are genuine questions; I'm not making a point. It would seen that the answers to these questions would have no small bearing on what actually transpired.

Here's the CNN story:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/22/world/africa/libya-ambassador-journal/index.html
There aren't really any details about journal content in that link, but it does indicate the journal was retrieved three days after the attack, from the same compound he was killed in.

 

[A'isha]

Because there were security forces on the ground who could contain the situation.

They didn't do a very good job of "containing the situation". The attackers were able to storm and ransack the embassy, and trap several personnel inside. And, after those trapped personnel were rescued in a quick in-and-out raid, the mob continued to occupy the site and set fires, and wasn't finally suppressed by riot police until much later.

As reports at the time noted, "Earlier, as demonstrators destroyed the wall that had protected the high-rise building, police and military forces took no action."

That's why the Israeli Prime Minister asked President Obama for help when the riots (which lasted twice as long as the entire series of multiple attacks in Benghazi) resulted in embassy guards protecting the trapped staff thinking they were about to make a last stand against the attackers who had entered the embassy and were breaking down security doors, as Israeli government officials watched in real-time. The Israeli Prime Minister later credited Obama's influence for finally getting the Egyptian military to send commandos to evacuate the trapped embassy staff (something the Americans at the CIA annex in Benghazi apparently did not need, since they were able to evacuate themselves to the Benghazi airport).

At no point during this 13 hour ordeal was any kind of air support involved, even when the trapped personnel were convinced that they were going to die in the attack.

People were demanding to know why air support wasn't sent because that's the only kind of support that could have been sent. And it's more than just drones. We could have had an AC-130 Spectre on target within a few hours. If you're not familiar with what those are, well, look it up: they're perfect for this sort of fight. They can provide LOTS of precise, directed fire at ground targets, for an extended period of time.

So why didn't we send one to Egypt? Why didn't the Israelis? Israel especially could have had aircraft on the way even as the embassy security chief asked Netanyahu to do his family the courtesy of telling them about his death in person, and Netanyahu assured him that Israel would do everything it could to bring them home safely.

 

[A'isha]

Why did Obama allow the Benghazi consulate to end up in a position where the only two options available were "immediate airstrike" and "watch and do nothing"?

That, at least, is a more valid question than "why didn't Obama send an AC-130?"

This whole airstrike/he-blamed-a-video nonsense is just throwing mud at a wall, motivated by partisan hatred rather than (as I said upthread) trying to figure out what happened, why, and how to prevent it from happening again.

 

[Ziggurat]

They didn't do a very good job of "containing the situation". The attackers were able to storm and ransack the embassy, and trap several personnel inside. And, after those trapped personnel were rescued in a quick in-and-out raid, the mob continued to occupy the site and set fires, and wasn't finally suppressed by riot police until much later.

The fact is, Egyptian ground forces were sufficient to handle the most important task: keep people safe. Beyond that, the use of lethal force was simply not worth it, especially considering the military tensions between Egypt and Israel which could have resulted in war if air support had been sent.

But again, no ground forces were available in Benghazi. There was no safe room for them to hide in. Their attackers weren't an angry mob, they were well-armed terrorists. Air support was their only available backup. Libya was in no position to object to, let alone prevent, any such air support. So why didn't they get it? Maybe there are good answers, but the public deserves to know them, and right now it's just getting a run-around which smells like a coverup.

Comparing the two attacks is either dishonest or ignorant. The scenarios are completely different, and so the responses should have been different. You are right to point out that some of the criticism of Obama over this affair is currently unfounded, such as the idea that he intentionally let Stevens die. But you're hardly establishing yourself as an informed and impartial participant of this discussion.

 

[theprestige]

Here's the CNN story:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/22/world/africa/libya-ambassador-journal/index.html
There aren't really any details about journal content in that link, but it does indicate the journal was retrieved three days after the attack, from the same compound he was killed in.

Which raises another couple of questions: Why was the site being secured by CNN three days later?

I mean, four of the nine Marine Security Guard companies are headquartered in Frankfurt, Germany--including the company that has North and West Africa as its areas of operation. Between them, these four companies have a total of 48 security detachments of five or more Marines.

The company based in South Africa and assigned to East Africa brings another 11 detachments. Then there's the two Fort Lauderdale companies, with 27 detachments between them for the Americas. Companies in Abu Dhabi and Bangkok have another 28 detachments.

I understand that most of these Marines are already assigned to embassies and consulates elsewhere. But surely they could have scraped together one NCO and five riflemen, to secure the Benghazi site? Within a couple days? Is that too much to ask?

 

[A'isha]

The fact is, Egyptian ground forces were sufficient to handle the most important task: keep people safe.

The Israeli guards in the embassy itself certainly didn't think so. Neither did the Israeli Prime Minister.

But again, no ground forces were available in Benghazi. There was no safe room for them to hide in. Their attackers weren't an angry mob, they were well-armed terrorists. Air support was their only available backup. Libya was in no position to object to, let alone prevent, any such air support. So why didn't they get it?

Do you know why dropping bombs and missiles on buildings in a city surrounding another building coming under intermittent and sporadic fire is hardly ever used as the option of first resort when making snap decisions about a situation?

Maybe there are good answers, but the public deserves to know them, and right now it's just getting a run-around which smells like a coverup.

No, this is yet again part of the "throw everything at the wall to see what sticks" effort on the part of the right. "Obama didn't call it a terrorist attack right away", "The terrorists dragged the body of the Ambassador through the streets", "The administration blamed it all on spontaneous protests over a video", "The State Department ignored calls to beef up Embassy security", "Emails show the White House knew terrorists claimed responsibility!", and now the airstrike thing.

The details of the timeline of both attacks in Benghazi that night were known more than a month ago. And yet this "where were the AC-130's!?" nonsense didn't crop up until recently, because none of the other accusations leveled by the right are gaining any traction whatsoever, and they need a new straw to grasp.

But you're hardly establishing yourself as an informed and impartial participant of this discussion.

Suit yourself.

 

[abaddon]

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?"

I have no dog in this fight, but this is just weird.

What did you expect?

12:00 Soldier got all blowed up in the door. Didn't know his name, but he was a nice lad

12:10 Guy with a towel on his head rushed in the door screaming, but one of our guys shot him.

Did the ambassador sit, shaky pen and diary in hand thinking "I may be about to die a horrible death, but I must update my diary"?

 

[Ziggurat]

Do you know why dropping bombs and missiles on buildings in a city surrounding another building coming under intermittent and sporadic fire is hardly ever used as the option of first resort when making snap decisions about a situation?

That wasn't the only air support option. Did you know that US forces in Afghanistan regularly do low-altitude passes to scare enemy forces, and it frequently works? Did you know that the AC-130 doesn't use missiles or bombs?

Air support isn't as good as ground support. But ground support wasn't an option for us. How long will it take you to realize this?

No, this is yet again part of the "throw everything at the wall to see what sticks" effort on the part of the right.

No, it's part of asking why we had a catastrophic security failure that resulted in the death of a US ambassador and other US personnel. The thing is, we're not just disagreeing over the answer to that question. We're not even debating possible answers. You're essentially insisting that the question shouldn't be asked. And your only defense for that position are nonsensical comparisons to completely different events under radically different circumstances, plus straw men. The fact that some other people hyperventilate at the drop of a hat doesn't invalidate my question, it just makes your argument a straw man. It's almost like you don't WANT to know the answers.

The details of the timeline of both attacks in Benghazi that night were known more than a month ago. And yet this "where were the AC-130's!?" nonsense didn't crop up until recently, because none of the other accusations leveled by the right are gaining any traction whatsoever, and they need a new straw to grasp.

Recent reports indicate that there was someone on site with a laser target designator able to illuminate the attacking mortars, and that air support was specifically called for. That's was not known a month ago. If you don't understand why that information is significant, then you really don't know what you're talking about.

In addition, that timeline is extremely incomplete. I note that it makes zero mention of the use of mortars by the attackers, which were a decisive factor but were not deployed at the beginning of fighting.

 

[Kestrel]

Which raises another couple of questions: Why was the site being secured by CNN three days later?

I mean, four of the nine Marine Security Guard companies are headquartered in Frankfurt, Germany--including the company that has North and West Africa as its areas of operation. Between them, these four companies have a total of 48 security detachments of five or more Marines.

The company based in South Africa and assigned to East Africa brings another 11 detachments. Then there's the two Fort Lauderdale companies, with 27 detachments between them for the Americas. Companies in Abu Dhabi and Bangkok have another 28 detachments.

I understand that most of these Marines are already assigned to embassies and consulates elsewhere. But surely they could have scraped together one NCO and five riflemen, to secure the Benghazi site? Within a couple days? Is that too much to ask?

Would it really be worth the resources to secure a burned out and looted compound at a time when every other facility is on high alert?

 

[Checkmite]

Because there were security forces on the ground who could contain the situation.

Did we have that in Benghazi? No, we did not. Did Libya have that? No, they did not. That is in no way an equivalent scenario.

"We" evidently had a security force in Libya which, however "late" they arrived on the scene, were able to rescue and evacuate consulate personnel first to the CIA annex and then to the airport.

Why this is repeatedly emphasized by some as "doing nothing at all" is beyond me. Everybody focuses on the four who were killed as proof that "nothing at all" was done to help the embassy. The continued existence of a disregarded and uncited number of consulate personnel certainly indicates that something most certainly was done.

 

[Newtons Bit]

That's making a whole lot of assumptions, especially in hindsight.

Seriously, of all the criticisms of the administration's handling of this, "Obama didn't order an immediate airstrike on the attackers!" is probably the most mind-boggling to me.

No. It's that they didn't even consider it a valid option. We deserve a real answer as to why. Citing some missing small surface-to-air missiles is not a valid excuse.

We also deserve a real response to why the guys at the CIA annex were told more than once not to intervene at the consulate.

 

[A'isha]

No. It's that they didn't even consider it a valid option. We deserve a real answer as to why. Citing some missing small surface-to-air missiles is not a valid excuse.

We also deserve a real response to why the guys at the CIA annex were told more than once not to intervene at the consulate.

Because Obama wants to help the terrorists in their efforts to impose "sharia law" as part of their shared ideological goals, of course.

Or was it because he helped forge a video which he could use to scapegoat the Jews as part of his long-term plan to destroy the Constitution?

Or maybe it was to cover up the fact that he's been secretly arming Syrian rebels for the benefit of al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Or could it have been because it was just God's punishment on America for violating His commandments?

Well, it's one of those, I'm sure.