Merged State Department admits there was no protest at Benghazi consulate

[A'isha]

But OUTRAGE? Sorry, that's contrived though the GOP is trying real hard to stir some up, and some people are primed to be outraged. But this thing does not have the legs Darrell Issa is trying so hard to make it have.

These hearings are doing a pretty good job of letting the GOP inadvertently reveal classified information to the public, though.

So there's that.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

........

But OUTRAGE? Sorry, that's contrived though the GOP is trying real hard to stir some up, and some people are primed to be outraged. But this thing does not have the legs Darrell Issa is trying so hard to make it have.

I only used the term ' outrage ' in quoting you ..

I'm not outraged. I'm saddened that these people died, and the Administration appeared to be in " cover our asses mode " ; milking the video as the reason, instead of the President stepping up and accepting responsibility..

I can see this happening under any Administration, but this happens to be the one we currently have..

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I only used the term ' outrage ' in quoting you ..

I'm not outraged. I'm saddened that these people died,

Actually, I wasn't necessarily replying to your use of the word. I am indeed the one using it, because provoking outrage is the goal of the GOP stick poking. They are trying to contrive outrage where the public is not outraged. It's the whole point of trying to make a mountain of this molehill (not to devalue the lives lost, clearly all lives matter).

....the Administration appeared to be in " cover our asses mode " ; milking the video as the reason, instead of the President stepping up and accepting responsibility..

I can see this happening under any Administration, but this happens to be the one we currently have..

But they weren't in cover up mode. That's half my point. The only cover up is the contrived one.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Do you think it would be any different If a Republican Administration was in the White House ?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Do you think it would be any different If a Republican Administration was in the White House ?

Yes, I do. I've been trying to be objective about it. Charlie Wrangle and a couple others had hearings looking into Bush issues. But think about it, there were no WMDs, the outing of Valerie Plame, the Downing St memo, the serious failure handling Katrina where over 1,000 people died, the firing of the 8 attorneys who refused to do the GOP political bidding, the hiring of 150 inexperienced attorneys from Pat Robertson's Liberty University (Regents Law School) when the law school wasn't even accredited, the list of outrages things is very long.

There was serious cronyism in Iraq rebuilding contracts and the contractors often left with the money, and shoddy work unfinished left behind.

I am not happy with everything Obama. He hasn't done anything to dismantle the PATRIOT Act spying. And the contractors are still providing much too much of the military services in the Middle East.

But the corruption and incompetence of the Bush administration deserved hearings and outrage. The crap Issa has tried to make into something re Obama pales in comparison.

 

[Cylinder]

Uhhh....

It was the State Dept. - not the GOP - that had to call a hasty media teleconference to make these admissions on the eve of a Congressional hearing.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Uhhh....

It was the State Dept. - not the GOP - that had to call a hasty media teleconference to make these admissions on the eve of a Congressional hearing.

The GOP is making a mountain out of this molehill for political gain.

Since when are early news reports that turn out to be wrong a reflection of government failure?

The Congressional hearing you speak of is no more than an Issa witch hunt.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Since when are early news reports that turn out to be wrong a reflection of government failure?

Uhh..

...That would be since the President used early ( unsubstantiated ) news reports in an address to the United Nations..

Really embarrassing when you consider the intel assets available to the President..

 

[Travis]

You cannot possibly be serious that it does not matter.

It doesn't matter. If it was a protest then a bunch of ignorant religious radicals did it. If it was a terrorist attack then a bunch of ignorant religious radicals did it.

Who is being hypocritical, and about what ?

Are you saying it doesn't matter if the president of the United States is lying ?

Oh, and it might have mattered if the consulate had received the increased security they requested and were denied..

I'm saying the President did not lie. I say that in the same way I maintained that W Bush didn't lie about the WMD's. They both believed intelligence as it was presented to them.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Uhh..

...That would be since the President used early ( unsubstantiated ) news reports in an address to the United Nations..

Really embarrassing when you consider the intel assets available to the President..

Like when Bush sent Colin Powell to the UN to make the phony case for WMDs in Iraq?

Powell's speech, YouTube, part one of 5.


The Obama handling of the Libyan fatalities was minor on the scale of things.

 

[Puppycow]

After Benghazi Attack, Talk Lagged Behind Intelligence

Ms. Rice, the United States ambassador to the United Nations, has said that the judgments she offered on the five talk shows on Sept. 16 came from talking points prepared by the C.I.A., which reckoned that the attack that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans had resulted from a spontaneous mob that was angry about an anti-Islamic video that had set off protests elsewhere. That assessment, described to Ms. Rice in briefings the day before her television appearances, was based on intercepted communications, informants' tips and Libyan press reports, officials said.

Later that Sunday, though, American intelligence analysts were already sifting through new field reports that seemed to contradict the initial assessment. It would be several days, however, before the intelligence agencies changed their formal assessment based on those new reports, and informed administration officials about the change. Intelligence officials say such a lag is typical of the ever-changing process of piecing together shards of information into a coherent picture fit for officials' public statements.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

And still no official response from the White House, accepting any responsibility for the miscommunication, or failure to provide the requested increase in security.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama...n-policy-failure/article/2511382#.UIVwf6PVBaQ

Questions have been raised about the fact that the State Department rejected requests for extra security at the U.S. mission in Libya — the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is pressing the White House for answers about its role in that decision — and the Obama administration’s changing account of the assault.

 

[A'isha]

And still no official response from the White House, accepting any responsibility for the miscommunication, or failure to provide the requested increase in security.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama...n-policy-failure/article/2511382#.UIVwf6PVBaQ

That's okay, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has found a way to pass the time until the Obama administration responds to their politically-motivated witchhunt - releasing unredacted State Department documents which contain the names of Libyan civilians and local leaders, thus placing them at risk to go along with their earlier revealing of the location of CIA assets in Benghazi to the world at large.

Thank you, Darrell Issa, for putting America's security interests above petty partisan politicking.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

And still no official response from the White House, accepting any responsibility for the miscommunication, or failure to provide the requested increase in security.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama...n-policy-failure/article/2511382#.UIVwf6PVBaQ

So your gripe is what? Obama's foreign policy is a failure because of this incident despite the fact in total things are remarkably improved over Bush's 8 years?

The incident appears to each side the way each side's message makers want. People latch on to the framing that fits their existing bias. Obama supporters have their own valid framing which I happen to find a better fit.

From the right: Oh gee, it's horrible, Obama is not groveling to the public about being a failure 2 weeks before the election. Well he shouldn't, given the public is so easily led by the most minute of sound bites. So as for accepting responsibility, of course you like the narrative of exaggerating one event into being an entire failure of policy.

Do you suppose Obama personally had no knowledge of said request? Is it possible things have yet to be investigated as to who made the bad decision? Maybe there was a good reason. Maybe increased security was in the works but not yet implemented. Maybe Congress' millions slashed from embassy security was the cause and Obama doesn't think it will look good to point fingers too rigorously.

“Will the president concede this was a foreign policy failure?” NBC’s Willie Geist asked Stephanie Cutter this morning in anticipation of the debate tonight.

“No,” Cutter replied.

I do believe Bush never conceded that 9-11-2001 was a devastating policy failure. He continued to brag about keeping America safe while not conceding that attacks on our foreign outposts contradicted that.

Obama has said he's asked for an investigation. You cannot act until you know what to act on. If a person doesn't want to be led by the framers and simply gratify their confirmation bias, they would be best served by keeping the total picture in the frame, not just a narrowly framed distorted aspect.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That's okay, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has found a way to pass the time until the Obama administration responds to their politically-motivated witchhunt - releasing unredacted State Department documents which contain the names of Libyan civilians and local leaders, thus placing them at risk to go along with their earlier revealing of the location of CIA assets in Benghazi to the world at large.

Thank you, Darrell Issa, for putting America's security interests above petty partisan politicking.

This^ is where the outrage should be directed.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Obama's foreign policy is a failure because of this incident despite the fact in total things are remarkably improved over Bush's 8 years?

What foreign policy ?

Improved for who, and as a result of what action by the US ( Obama ) ?

 

[funk de fino]

NSFW - Graphic image of corpse

[qimg]http://imageshack.us/a/img51/4751/stephens.jpg[/qimg]

You have no evidence for your claim then? The evidence provided by others point to this being the people who took him to hospital. You got anything to dispute that?

It doesn't hurt to just admit you made a boo boo.

 

[theprestige]

I don't expect the president to micro-manage every embassy--or even any embassy, really. Not usually.

But I did expect this president to micro-manage this embassy, for what I think are obvious reasons.

With the recent regime change, Obama was given an incredible and unique opportunity. Libya was his chance to really set himself apart from previous administrations, and really change perceptions about what American diplomacy means.

He wasn't stuck with a pre-soured relationship, inherited from previous administrations. He wasn't stuck with a despot or tyrant he had to cozy up to for political or economic reasons. Best of all, he didn't have to settle for a token friendship with an insignificant nation. Libya has strategic importance on the global stage. A good relationship there would actually be important. It would actually mean something.

If I were Obama, I'd let the State Department attend to matters in the UK, and in Germany. Heck, I'd even delegate Russia to State. Hillary's certainly up to the task, and it'd be a waste of good talent not to use her there.

But Libya? I'd want to be there myself. Failing that, I'd want the next best thing, or as close to it as American wealth and power could get me. Whoever I sent there, I'd talk to them early and often. I'd check in on the Libya situation every day, and see if there was anything that needed doing, to better ensure the best possible outcome.

I'd sure as hell be interested in the ongoing social stability and security situation. And I'd for damn sure make it clear to my staff that Libya was of the utmost interest to me, and that no concern was too small, no issue too trivial, to get their full attention and the full resources of the Executive branch.

Attacks on my ambassador there? Better find out who's doing it, and figure out how to stop them. And better make sure their security is beefed up. Anniversary of 9/11 is approaching? Better beef up security a little more. Make sure there are American boots on the ground, just in case. The embassy gets attacked while the White House watches via drone camera overhead? Better go full retard on those shenanigans before even another minute passes. And cancel all campaign events until I know for sure that my man in Benghazi is safe and sound, and my good work in Libya can proceed.

 

[jj]

I see that people are still second-guessing the Commander in Chief, without actually having full knowlege of the situation.

I guess that these people have no respect for the military chain of command, or the CIC.

 

[Alphaba]

That's okay, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has found a way to pass the time until the Obama administration responds to their politically-motivated witchhunt - [...] revealing of the location of CIA assets in Benghazi to the world at large.

To be fair, the New York Times managed to reveal this location through a couple of pieces one month ago. Just look at the second and fourth satellite photos (and their captions) they produced on September the 20th: The Attack on the American Mission in Benghazi, Libya

And then carefully read this (relevant clues bolded), published 4 days later:

The attack has raised questions about the adequacy of security preparations at the two American compounds in Benghazi: the American mission, the main diplomatic facility where Mr. Stevens and another American diplomat died of smoke inhalation after an initial attack, and an annex a half-mile away that encompassed four buildings inside a low-walled compound.

From among these buildings, the C.I.A. personnel carried out their secret missions. The New York Times agreed to withhold locations and details of these operations at the request of Obama administration officials [Link]

"Whithhold locations"