US Ambassador to Libya reported killed

[Furrowed Brow]

New in the last few minutes is that the US ambassador to Libya has been killed after the embassy was attacked by crowds in response to a US made film depicting the prophet Muhammad.

If this is true then is very sad and condolences too anyone connected to the embassy and the ambassador.

One BBC reporter described the film by Sam Bacile as highly offensive. There are clips available on youtube

Well in the 13 min clip I fail to see anything that is offensive, and certainly not justification to start burning down embassies. However the film is so bad it feels like watching Monty Python or Mel Brooks. American actors with American accents faces smeared with boot polish and false beards and truly dreadful acting and dialogue. It is up there with Plan 9 from Outer Space.

However, to be true there is a tangible despising of Islam from the makers of the film. Though it is bad, so bad it is funny even, I wonder whether there are too many folk on both sides without a sense of humour.

There will now be more riots across the Middle East I fear.

Is feeling offended the right response to having your religious leader or prophet depicted in a way youdo not approve? Is the right response to shrug the shoulders and say “that was pathetic�. Even those of the Islamic faith who would not resort to violence do you feel angered by such a film or can you shrug it off as just stupid. If Islamic film makes made a film of Jesus in a similar fashion would Christians be offended? Would you shrug it off as pathetic?

[East of Eden]

White House ordered prosecution of filmmaker:

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfiel ... filmmaker/

[micatala]

Micatala, I think the confusion here is I stated we are less respected by Muslim nations (except for Turkey) under Obama, and I demonstrated that. You brought up other world nations (not the subject of this thread), in some areas we are more respected under Obama, others not. If we both agree to that, we need to move on.

I agree that there is some data to suggest we are viewed slightly less positively in some Muslim countries. I don't agree that the one set of data shows this unequivocally given the other data in the same poll. I accept the questions for each data set are different with one specifically mentioning Obama.

What would be nice is to have some alternative polls to consider. Consider that some of the differences in percents are probably within the margin of error for such polls, which is typically 3% to 5%.


However, while I might be remembering incorrectly, this came up in the context of you accusing Obama of weakness and that this perceived weakness was partly responsible for the recent riots and attacks.


You data does not address the concept of "weakness" at all that I can see.

Nor did you provide any evidence that, even if Obama were perceived as weak, that those perceptions had any effect on these incidents, or any other incidents of terror.

I would agree we could move on to other issues at this point.

Getting back to the OP, you seem to imply the commotion is part of some vast right-wing conspiracy.

I wouldn't say a conspiracy. I would simply say some on the right are practicing very highly selective and biased analysis of the situation.

Saying the Administration "knew" the attack in Benghazi was not motivated by the film, or was not spontaneous, or did not involve some aspect of protest and using an e-mail which cites nothing more than a facebook page as the evidence for this is highly selective (in only citing the e-mails) and highly biased (in portraying one facebook posting as reliable evidence.)



I might respond on Woodward later if time.

[micatala]

White House ordered prosecution of filmmaker:

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfiel ... filmmaker/

Your statement is a bit too strong to put it mildly given the evidence.

I appreciate Charles Woods statements. However, this is simply based on his recollection of the event as related on a phone call to a conservative talk radio host.

I understand he also seems to have done an interview with Glenn Beck.

http://www.therightscoop.com/glenn-beck ... -benghazi/


I will note that his wife seems to have a very, very different take of this event.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ttack.html

His recollection of the reception differs sharply from that of Tyrone's mother, who last month took to Facebook to praise the officials who organised the event.

Writing about the repatriation of her son's body, Cheryl Croft Bennett said: 'The entire afternoon was overpowering and unreal.

'Little did I know that I would find myself in a reception room being comforted, hugged, and, yes, even kissed by the President of the United States. Along with the President, there was Vice-President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, and General and Mrs Colin Powell.

'They were all wonderful. They held my hand, offered condolences, gave warm hugs, and were extremely compassionate and genuinely sad for my loss, as I fought back tears and tried to project an image of strength to honor my SEAL son.'

Now, I certainly understand the father's grief and his desire to know exactly what happened. I support doing an investigation to see what all the facts are.



Here is a video interview with Woods and his family.



The statements here are somewhat different even than the radio call on the Lars Larson show, or the Glenn Beck show. He first says Obama was very gracious, but later does accuse Obama of being insincere and Clinton of lying. Perhaps he is right, but at this point I do not see that the evidence merits that judgment. He clearly wants answers, which is entirely understandable. He does say he wants this not to be political.

[micatala]

Here is a factcheck on the timeline of events and statements. I don't have time to comment further now. However, I generally consider factcheck.org to be reliable so am certainly willing to consider the implications of there comments.

http://factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/

[micatala]

PS.


Here is probably why the film was being cited by Clinton et. al.

http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-ma ... z2AKKpFZKz

Ansar al Shariah, an Islamist group in Libya that has been accused of executing last night's attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi, issued a statement on the assault. The statement, which has been translated by the SITE Intelligence Group, is neither a full denial nor a full claim of responsibility. The group stated that it "didn't participate as a sole entity," leaving open the possibility that its members were involved. Ansar al Shariah then claimed that the attack "was a spontaneous popular uprising" to a video released on YouTube that denigrated the Prophet Mohammed.

Below is an excerpt from the statement, emphasis is ours:

Ansar al-Shariah Brigade didn't participate in this popular uprising as a separate entity, but it was carrying out its duties in al-Jala'a hospital and other places where it was entrusted with some duties. The Brigade didn't participate as a sole entity; rather, it was a spontaneous popular uprising in response to what happened by the West.

Ansar al Shariah wants you to believe that this attack was part of a "spontaneous popular uprising," and not an assault linked to an organized Jihadi-Salafist group that has launched attacks in Benghazi in the recent past, including against at least one foreign consulate. To believe that, you also have to believe that a group of demonstrators, armed with assault rifles and rocket-propelled grenades, spontaneously showed up in front of the US Consulate, and then overran the security and killed the US ambassador and three Americans. While this is certainly possible, it isn't likely.

Again, I don't consider a facebook posting too reliable. On the other hand, if this posting is justification for saying the Administration knew as a fact that it was a terrorist attack and who was involved, it is also justification for saying the film was the motivator.


As I understand, there was another post to the same account some time later basically denying this.


Thus, couching statements as tentative and "given what we know now" seems entirely appropriate.

[otseng]

It would only be 'audacious' for a left-wing extremist.

Having a bad comprehension day?

Moderator Warning


Please avoid making any derogatory insinuations about others.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[East of Eden]

Micatala, I think the confusion here is I stated we are less respected by Muslim nations (except for Turkey) under Obama, and I demonstrated that. You brought up other world nations (not the subject of this thread), in some areas we are more respected under Obama, others not. If we both agree to that, we need to move on.

I agree that there is some data to suggest we are viewed slightly less positively in some Muslim countries. I don't agree that the one set of data shows this unequivocally given the other data in the same poll. I accept the questions for each data set are different with one specifically mentioning Obama.

What would be nice is to have some alternative polls to consider. Consider that some of the differences in percents are probably within the margin of error for such polls, which is typically 3% to 5%.


However, while I might be remembering incorrectly, this came up in the context of you accusing Obama of weakness and that this perceived weakness was partly responsible for the recent riots and attacks.


You data does not address the concept of "weakness" at all that I can see.

Nor did you provide any evidence that, even if Obama were perceived as weak, that those perceptions had any effect on these incidents, or any other incidents of terror.

I would agree we could move on to other issues at this point.

Getting back to the OP, you seem to imply the commotion is part of some vast right-wing conspiracy.

I wouldn't say a conspiracy. I would simply say some on the right are practicing very highly selective and biased analysis of the situation.

Saying the Administration "knew" the attack in Benghazi was not motivated by the film, or was not spontaneous, or did not involve some aspect of protest and using an e-mail which cites nothing more than a facebook page as the evidence for this is highly selective (in only citing the e-mails) and highly biased (in portraying one facebook posting as reliable evidence.)



I might respond on Woodward later if time.

Please do look at the Woodward clips before you dismiss this as a non-issue. The bias is entirely on the part of the faux-journalists who aren't doing their job but playing partisan politics instead.

[chris_brown207]

Not that I ever thought I would quote Fox News commentator Geraldo Rivera, but even he seems to be distancing himself from the Benghazi controversy. He called it "GOP bloodlust," "insincere," and a "desperate" last minute attempt to sway the polls. He called the suggestion that we could have saved those 4 men a "cruel myth".

https://twitter.com/GeraldoRivera

[East of Eden]

Not that I ever thought I would quote Fox News commentator Geraldo Rivera, but even he seems to be distancing himself from the Benghazi controversy. He called it "GOP bloodlust," "insincere," and a "desperate" last minute attempt to sway the polls. He called the suggestion that we could have saved those 4 men a "cruel myth".

https://twitter.com/GeraldoRivera

I wouldn't call him a military expert. From Wikipedia:

"In 2001, during the War in Afghanistan, Rivera was derided for a report in which he claimed to be at the scene of a friendly fire incident; it was later revealed he was actually 300 miles away. Rivera blamed a minor misunderstanding for the discrepancy.[19]
Controversy arose in early 2003, while Rivera was traveling with the 101st Airborne Division in Iraq. During a Fox News broadcast, Rivera began to disclose an upcoming operation, even going so far as to draw a map in the sand for his audience. The military immediately issued a firm denunciation of his actions, saying it put the operation at risk, and nearly expelled Rivera from Iraq. Two days later, he announced that he would be reporting on the Iraq conflict from Kuwait."

The fact is, the attack went on for 7 hours and we had military jets an hour away in Sicily. I'm pretty sure the four dead Americans if given the chance would have wanted more help. Saying more help wouldn't have improved the situation is pure speculation, and illogical at that.

[micatala]

Not that I ever thought I would quote Fox News commentator Geraldo Rivera, but even he seems to be distancing himself from the Benghazi controversy. He called it "GOP bloodlust," "insincere," and a "desperate" last minute attempt to sway the polls. He called the suggestion that we could have saved those 4 men a "cruel myth".

https://twitter.com/GeraldoRivera

I wouldn't call him a military expert. From Wikipedia:

"In 2001, during the War in Afghanistan, Rivera was derided for a report in which he claimed to be at the scene of a friendly fire incident; it was later revealed he was actually 300 miles away. Rivera blamed a minor misunderstanding for the discrepancy.[19]
Controversy arose in early 2003, while Rivera was traveling with the 101st Airborne Division in Iraq. During a Fox News broadcast, Rivera began to disclose an upcoming operation, even going so far as to draw a map in the sand for his audience. The military immediately issued a firm denunciation of his actions, saying it put the operation at risk, and nearly expelled Rivera from Iraq. Two days later, he announced that he would be reporting on the Iraq conflict from Kuwait."

The fact is, the attack went on for 7 hours and we had military jets an hour away in Sicily. I'm pretty sure the four dead Americans if given the chance would have wanted more help. Saying more help wouldn't have improved the situation is pure speculation, and illogical at that.

Well, I would certainly share your circumspection about Rivera. I am not sure how he is less reliable than Hannity, but that is a separate issue.

As far as bringing in jets from Sicily, I am open to hearing what an objective military person would say. I am no expert, but I am not sure how much sense that makes.

What is the jet supposed to do? Fire a missile into the compound or the building, with the Ambassador possibly inside?? This is not a battlefield situation. How are you going to decide what to hit, especially with your own folks on site?




Here is a timeline of events provided by factcheck.org.

http://factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/

Here is a timeline from the CIA via CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestof ... =allsearch



Here is a report indicating that a senior intelligence official differed very strongly with reports given on FOX claiming calls for help were ignored or refused.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestof ... attack.cnn



Related story from CNN.
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/0 ... =allsearch

Intelligence official offers new timeline for Benghazi attack
From Suzanne Kelly

A senior U.S. intelligence official discounted a Fox News report from last Friday that said officials within the CIA chain of command denied repeated requests from its officers on the ground to assist during the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya.

The official insisted that the CIA operators on the ground were in charge of their movements and the safety of those who were preparing to respond was also an important consideration.

"There were no orders to anybody to stand down in providing support," the official said.

The official detailed a minute-by-minute account of what the official said occurred September 11.

There was a roughly 25-minute gap between when the officers at a nearby annex received the call for help from the mission to when the officers were able to get on their way to assist. During that time the officers at that annex location were getting their weapons loaded into vehicles, while others were on the phone trying to get local "friendly" militias with heavier weapons to help.

The Fox report also suggested that the officers on the ground asked for military backup but the CIA denied those requests. The official again said this report was wrong. The military, the official said, provided drone surveillance and a tactical security team to assist.

The timeline:

– Around 9:40 p.m.(local time) the annex receives the first call that the mission is under attack.

– Fewer than 25 minutes later, a security team leaves the annex for the mission.

– Over the next 25 minutes, the team members approach the compound, attempt to secure heavy weapons and make their way onto the compound in the face of enemy fire.

– At 11:11 p.m., the requested drone surveillance arrives over the mission compound.

– By 11:30 p.m., all U.S. personnel, except for Ambassador Chris Stevens, who is missing, depart the mission. The exiting vehicles come under fire.

– Over the next roughly 90 minutes, the annex receives sporadic small arms fire and rocket-propelled grenade rounds. The security team returns fire and the attackers disperse at approximately 1 a.m.

– At about the same time, a team of additional security personnel lands at the Benghazi airport and negotiates for transport into town. Upon learning the ambassador is missing and that the situation at the annex has calmed, the team focuses on locating Stevens and tried to obtain information on the security situation at the hospital.

– It is still predawn when the team at the airport finally manages to secure transportation and an armed escort. Having learned that the ambassador was almost certainly dead and that the security situation at the hospital was uncertain, the team heads to the annex to assist with the evacuation.

– They arrive with Libyan support at the annex at 5:15 a.m., just before the mortar rounds begin to hit the annex. Two security officers are killed when they take direct mortar fire as they engage the enemy. That attack lasts only 11 minutes before dissipating.

– Less than an hour later, a heavily-armed Libyan military unit arrives to help evacuate the compound of all U.S. personnel.

One other American was killed in the attack.

It does not appear to be accurate that the "attack went on for 7 hours." There were several attack episodes, spread out over roughly that time span, but this is not a continuous attack. The folks on the ground might easily have believed they had fought off the attackers, and that seems to be true, at least temporarily.



I really see no reason to criticize the folks on the ground in Benghazi or the Administration with respect to actions on 9/11 or their statements afterwords.


I think the main question is whether there were any errors or lapses in judgment prior to the attack. That is a very legitimate question. Arguing about "the film" and whether Administration spokespeople or Obama said the word "terror" often enough seems besides the point and silly.

What I have heard reported is that some felt there should have been more security on the ground in Libya, but that even if the requests that had been made had been fulfilled, it would not likely have made any difference as far as repelling the attack. Possibly if you had put significantly more security than had been requested, that might have made a difference.