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?

[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

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.

I don't think anyone would ever accuse Rivera of being a military expert! But then again how many of the commentators who have voiced their outrage are? So, if we are going to allow their opinion, we cannot discard the opinion of someone like Rivera either.

Whether the men at that embassy wanted more help - that goes without saying. The question is whether there was effective help within close enough proximity to prevent their tragic deaths. An hour's flight away is an eternity on the battlefield. I talked to a gentlemen today who was a member of a QRF (Quick Reaction Force) in Baghdad, and we talked about how just a few miles can change things so drastically.

You mentioned military jets - unfortunately, they don't fly low enough or slow enough to be able to provide effective support to men fighting in close quarters battle. And remember, these were security forces, not an elite military unit. Even infantry normally don't carry the types of radios necessary to talk directly to pilots - much less embassy security forces. They wouldn't have been carrying IR beacons either to mark their positions, nor laser designators to mark the enemies. Those men on the ground would have been just as likely to suffer friendly fire due to the closeness of battle, even if low and slow flyers like helicopters had been able to enter the battle space.

Had their been enough time, an elite force could have fast roped into the compound. This would have required the embassy to be semi-secure and would have required enough time to assemble. This type of response takes hours and hours to organize, sometimes days, much less the time to transport to the AOR. Even our most elite forces would have needed more time unless they were on high alert standby. These guys are not just sitting in a hangar in Sigonella loaded up in battle gear waiting for a call. The aircraft are not sitting locked, loaded, and fueled up on the airstrip. In most cases, a 12 hour response of this nature would have been considered dangerously fast and would have been as likely to lead to more tragedy. A couple of the guys I served with were at Mogadishu, and can attest to that.

Those "high speed" missions you hear about on TV, like that one that took place in Pakistan, can be misleading. You didn't see the years of work that went into that mission that night, or the months and endless months of work-ups prior to even getting the guys within striking distance.

[East of Eden]

Here's a new report from CBS, our counter terror force was not convened during this terror attack:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-575 ... te-attack/

"The CSG is the one group that's supposed to know what resources every agency has. They know of multiple options and have the ability to coordinate counterterrorism assets across all the agencies," a high-ranking government official told CBS News. "They were not allowed to do their job. They were not called upon."


I would assume this situation was exactly why it and our other special forces exist. This is getting worse by the day. Again, here is Bob Woodward talking about this fiasco, and this was two weeks ago before some of the recent information has come out:



A good editorial on this mess:

http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/benghazi-bl ... 36441.html

They always talk about the proverbial response to the early morning phone call, Obama failed this one.

[nursebenjamin]

@ East of Eden
Below is a list of attacks on U.S. embassies and consulates during the Bush years. For each attack, please document exactly when W. Bush became aware of the advanced planning, and how he failed to prevent these attacks:

June 14, 2002, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Suicide bomber kills 12 and injures 51.

February 20, 2003, international diplomatic compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Truck bomb kills 17.

February 28, 2003, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Gunmen on motorcycles killed two consulate guards.

July 30, 2004, U.S. embassy in Taskkent, Uzbekistan
Suicide bomber kills two.

December 6, 2004, U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Militants stormed and occupied perimeter wall. Five killed, 10 wounded.

March 2, 2006, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Suicide car bomber killed four, including a U.S. diplomate directly targeted by the assailants.

September 12, 2006, U.S. embassy in Damascus, Syria
Gunmen attacked embassy with grenades, automatic weapons, and a car bomb (though second truck bomb failed to detonate). One killed and 13 wounded.

January 12, 2007, U.S. embassy in Athens, Greece
A rocket-propelled grenade was fired at the embassy building. No one was injured.
July 9, 2008, U.S. consulate in Istanbul, Turkey
Armed men attacked consulate with pistols and shotguns. Three policemen killed.

March 18, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana'a, Yemen
Mortar attack misses embassy, hits nearby girls' school instead.

September 17, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana'a, Yemen
Militants dressed as policemen attacked the embassy with RPGs, rifles, grenades and car bombs. Six Yemeni soldiers and seven civilians were killed. Sixteen more were injured.

[East of Eden]

@ East of Eden
Below is a list of attacks on U.S. embassies and consulates during the Bush years. For each attack, please document exactly when W. Bush became aware of the advanced planning, and how he failed to prevent these attacks:

June 14, 2002, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Suicide bomber kills 12 and injures 51.

February 20, 2003, international diplomatic compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Truck bomb kills 17.

February 28, 2003, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Gunmen on motorcycles killed two consulate guards.

July 30, 2004, U.S. embassy in Taskkent, Uzbekistan
Suicide bomber kills two.

December 6, 2004, U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Militants stormed and occupied perimeter wall. Five killed, 10 wounded.

March 2, 2006, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Suicide car bomber killed four, including a U.S. diplomate directly targeted by the assailants.

September 12, 2006, U.S. embassy in Damascus, Syria
Gunmen attacked embassy with grenades, automatic weapons, and a car bomb (though second truck bomb failed to detonate). One killed and 13 wounded.

January 12, 2007, U.S. embassy in Athens, Greece
A rocket-propelled grenade was fired at the embassy building. No one was injured.
July 9, 2008, U.S. consulate in Istanbul, Turkey
Armed men attacked consulate with pistols and shotguns. Three policemen killed.

March 18, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana'a, Yemen
Mortar attack misses embassy, hits nearby girls' school instead.

September 17, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana'a, Yemen
Militants dressed as policemen attacked the embassy with RPGs, rifles, grenades and car bombs. Six Yemeni soldiers and seven civilians were killed. Sixteen more were injured.

I'm pretty sure if those places were under assault for seven hours Bush would have arranged to come to their aid. And I bet if those places were attacked twice in the year prior to the attacks, and the area was so dangerous US employees got hazard pay, and the British Embassy and Red Cross closed their facilities due to the danger, and those places had requested more security, that Bush would have greatly increased security.

BTW, Bush isn't running in this election.

[nursebenjamin]

I'm pretty sure if those places were under assault for seven hours Bush would have arranged to come to their aid.

According to the C.I.A., security officers arrived at the consulate from their secret base (the annex) within 25 minutes of it coming under fire. This is how long it took the security officers to prepare for a counteroffensive, round up heavy weapons and local militias, and race to the scene.[1]

And I bet if those places were attacked twice in the year prior to the attacks, and the area was so dangerous US employees got hazard pay, ...

For the record, almost all of the “employees� at the Benghazi consulate were C.I.A. operatives. Collecting intelligence in Libya is of course going to be hazardous.

and those places had requested more security, that Bush would have greatly increased security.

You don’t know what Bush would have done. How many times did Bush allow the Green Zone in Baghdad to come under fire? Anyhow, aren't all the reports saying that additional security personal at the consulate wouldn't have changed the outcome?

BTW, Bush isn't running in this election.

What the heck does the election have to do with this? You are basically admitting that your “armchair quarterbacking� here is nothing more than an attempt to exploit the tragic deaths of Americans for election politics? Shame on you!

[East of Eden]

I'm pretty sure if those places were under assault for seven hours Bush would have arranged to come to their aid.

According to the C.I.A., security officers arrived at the consulate from their secret base (the annex) within 25 minutes of it coming under fire. This is how long it took the security officers to prepare for a counteroffensive, round up heavy weapons and local militias, and race to the scene.[1]

And I bet if those places were attacked twice in the year prior to the attacks, and the area was so dangerous US employees got hazard pay, ...

For the record, almost all of the “employees� at the Benghazi consulate were C.I.A. operatives. Collecting intelligence in Libya is of course going to be hazardous.

Especially when you come under attack and nobody comes to your rescue.

You don’t know what Bush would have done. How many times did Bush allow the Green Zone in Baghdad to come under fire?

If you're comparing Benghazi to the Green Zone, then we were really understaffed in the security department there.

Anyhow, aren't all the reports saying that additional security personal at the consulate wouldn't have changed the outcome?

Uh, no, how would anybody know that. In cases like these, more security personel are good, less are bad.

What the heck does the election have to do with this?

Obama's Libya failure is certainly fair game to discuss in an election.

You are basically admitting that your “armchair quarterbacking� here is nothing more than an attempt to exploit the tragic deaths of Americans for election politics? Shame on you!

I guess Bob Woodward is working for Romney, huh? Shame on you and the MSM for ignoring this to help their boy Obama. To them, Romney saying 'binders' is a story, the death of an American ambassador is not.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 156:

For the record, almost all of the “employees� at the Benghazi consulate were C.I.A. operatives. Collecting intelligence in Libya is of course going to be hazardous.

Especially when you come under attack and nobody comes to your rescue.

While tragic, it is commonly understood that folks who take on jobs in areas where such violence is known to occur have recognized that they may come under conditions detrimental to their own security.

If you're comparing Benghazi to the Green Zone, then we were really understaffed in the security department there.

Anytime a soldier or citizen dies or is wounded, we can attribute such to being understaffed.

I dare say that where folks are apt to "rise up" against any they disagree with, all the staffing in the world won't prevent one or more of our own getting maimed or killed.

I propose that to suggest otherwise is to indicate a naivety and lack of fundamental understanding as to invoke justified incredulity against such a petitioner.

Uh, no, how would anybody know that. In cases like these, more security personel are good, less are bad.

Such a position fails to understand that "overstaffing" can induce in some a sense of being "overwhelmed" or "outgunned", to the point they'd seek to reduce such a real or perceived advantage of numbers.

Obama's Libya failure is certainly fair game to discuss in an election.

Such a condition assumes the pertinent situation is or was a "failure", while not taking into account the points I now present.

That many Libyans spoke out against such a violent act indicates that engaging the "enemy", or just the plain "neutral" - at personal and national risk - may well be the best way to go.

We take risk in engaging folks - politically, diplomatically, militarily, or civilianly.

I guess Bob Woodward is working for Romney, huh? Shame on you and the MSM for ignoring this to help their boy Obama. To them, Romney saying 'binders' is a story, the death of an American ambassador is not.

The death of an ambassador - American or not - is indeed cause for concern.

Such concern should be measured against a candidate who leans to the extreme right when he deems it more vote-worthy, and t'wards the center or even the left when he deems that more vote-worthy.

Romney is, I contend, vacuous to anything but his own personal / financial goals.

[nursebenjamin]

I'm pretty sure if those places were under assault for seven hours Bush would have arranged to come to their aid.

According to the C.I.A., security officers arrived at the consulate from their secret base (the annex) within 25 minutes of it coming under fire. This is how long it took the security officers to prepare for a counteroffensive, round up heavy weapons and local militias, and race to the scene.[1]

And I bet if those places were attacked twice in the year prior to the attacks, and the area was so dangerous US employees got hazard pay, ...

For the record, almost all of the “employees� at the Benghazi consulate were C.I.A. operatives. Collecting intelligence in Libya is of course going to be hazardous.

Especially when you come under attack and nobody comes to your rescue.

What? Security officers responded to the Consulate from a C.I.A. annex within 25 minutes. Over the next half hour, the security officers evacuated 30 employees (most were C.I.A. working under diplomatic cover), and recovered the body of Sean Smith. They were unable to locate Ambassador Stevens and he was later taken to a hospital by locals.

The employees were evacuated to the C.I.A. annex, and the annex took on sporadic small arms fire over the next two hours. The security agents were able to repel this small arms fire. A C.I.A.-led team of reinforcements, (including two military commandos) had arrived from Tripoli, and was present at the C.I.A. annex when it came under attack for a second time. It was during this 7-minute mortar attack that Doherty and Woods were killed.

You don’t know what Bush would have done. How many times did Bush allow the Green Zone in Baghdad to come under fire?

If you're comparing Benghazi to the Green Zone, then we were really understaffed in the security department there.

It’s just a shame that those who are so vocal on this remained so quiet during lead up to the Iraq War. Think of all the lives that could have been saved there.

As noted above, embassies (not including the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan) were attacked eleven times under George W Bush, resulting in 43 dead and 90 people injured. Why no outrage om Fox News concerning this fact?

Anyhow, aren't all the reports saying that additional security personal at the consulate wouldn't have changed the outcome?

Uh, no, how would anybody know that. In cases like these, more security personel are good, less are bad.

More Diplomatic Security Agents at the Consulate probably could not have repelled heavy weapons used by the attackers. The Diplomatic Security Service requested four agents to protect the Consulate, with three being a bare minimum. There were five agents present at the time of the attack, as well as four armed Libyans outside the Consulate.

Moreover, House Republicans voted to cut $300 million in funding from Embassy Security as part of their most recent budget (the Ryan Plan). You must be extremely furious at these Republicans, right?

What the heck does the election have to do with this?

Obama's Libya failure is certainly fair game to discuss in an election.

You are basically admitting that your “armchair quarterbacking� here is nothing more than an attempt to exploit the tragic deaths of Americans for election politics? Shame on you!

I guess Bob Woodward is working for Romney, huh? Shame on you and the MSM for ignoring this to help their boy Obama. To them, Romney saying 'binders' is a story, the death of an American ambassador is not.

Who is ignoring the death of an Ambassador? Just because other media outlets aren’t spreading the same misinformation as Fox News, doesn’t mean that anyone is ignoring the story.

(A) The administration did not lie when they suggested that a viral anti-Islam YouTube video sparked violence. In the days following the September 11 attack, this was the assessment of the Intelligence community. (B) No request for extra security in Benghazi was denied by the administration.

[East of Eden]

I'm pretty sure if those places were under assault for seven hours Bush would have arranged to come to their aid.

According to the C.I.A., security officers arrived at the consulate from their secret base (the annex) within 25 minutes of it coming under fire. This is how long it took the security officers to prepare for a counteroffensive, round up heavy weapons and local militias, and race to the scene.[1]

And I bet if those places were attacked twice in the year prior to the attacks, and the area was so dangerous US employees got hazard pay, ...

For the record, almost all of the “employees� at the Benghazi consulate were C.I.A. operatives. Collecting intelligence in Libya is of course going to be hazardous.

Especially when you come under attack and nobody comes to your rescue.

What? Security officers responded to the Consulate from a C.I.A. annex within 25 minutes. Over the next half hour, the security officers evacuated 30 employees (most were C.I.A. working under diplomatic cover), and recovered the body of Sean Smith. They were unable to locate Ambassador Stevens and he was later taken to a hospital by locals.

The employees were evacuated to the C.I.A. annex, and the annex took on sporadic small arms fire over the next two hours. The security agents were able to repel this small arms fire. A C.I.A.-led team of reinforcements, (including two military commandos) had arrived from Tripoli, and was present at the C.I.A. annex when it came under attack for a second time. It was during this 7-minute mortar attack that Doherty and Woods were killed.

Are you trying to argue this was some kind of success? One of the earlier requests for more security wanted about 10 special forces guys. This probably would have been enough to repel the 20 or so Al-Queda attackers.

It’s just a shame that those who are so vocal on this remained so quiet during lead up to the Iraq War. Think of all the lives that could have been saved there.

As noted above, embassies (not including the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan) were attacked eleven times under George W Bush, resulting in 43 dead and 90 people injured. Why no outrage om Fox News concerning this fact?

Red herring noted. Anything to avoid discussing Obama's failure.

More Diplomatic Security Agents at the Consulate probably could not have repelled heavy weapons used by the attackers. The Diplomatic Security Service requested four agents to protect the Consulate, with three being a bare minimum. There were five agents present at the time of the attack, as well as four armed Libyans outside the Consulate.

See above.

Moreover, House Republicans voted to cut $300 million in funding from Embassy Security as part of their most recent budget (the Ryan Plan). You must be extremely furious at these Republicans, right?

Uh, did you miss the State Department who said budget cuts were NOT the reason extra security requests were denied, or did you just make that one up? BTW, the State Department budget has doubled since 2004.

Who is ignoring the death of an Ambassador? Just because other media outlets aren’t spreading the same misinformation as Fox News, doesn’t mean that anyone is ignoring the story.

(A) The administration did not lie when they suggested that a viral anti-Islam YouTube video sparked violence.

Yes they did, it was known very early this was terror. One report said Obama watched it in real time. Why no photos released showing this like they did of him watching the Bin Laden operation?

In the days following the September 11 attack, this was the assessment of the Intelligence community.

Anybody in the CIA who covered for Obama by saying such a misleading thing needs to be investigated also.

(B) No request for extra security in Benghazi was denied by the administration.

Yes it was.

http://news.yahoo.com/house-committee-s ... 42076.html

[micatala]

I get that the crux of this position is a semantical argument about whether the President was speaking about Benghazi, or more broadly when he said "act of terror". I believe I will stick with my what I said about this not adding much value to the discussion.

You were proven wrong, dead wrong to be precise. Obama did not call the attacks on the Bengazhi embassy an act of terror. To the contrary, he and his administration pushed the narrative that it was not an act of terror. Several news agencies have proven you wrong, so you should retract your statement.

Not at all true.

Obama specifically cited the four deaths, and 9/11/2001, and then referred to acts of terror. It requires a good deal of deliberate or sloppy mis-interpretation of the speech to say that he was not referring to the Benghazi attacks as, at the very least, a potential or probable act of terror.

Your "proof" is really nothing more than spin presented as fact.


I also have not seen any "proof" that the Adminstration pushed the notion that it was not an act of terror. Saying the film was a motivating factor is not the same as saying it was not an act of terror.

I grant that various individuals spoke on the incident without using the word "terror." So what? That is not the same as claiming it is not an act of terror.

Secondly, being an act of terror and being spontaneous or opportunistic are not mutually exclusive.

Being an act of terror and being motivated by the film are not mutually exclusive. My understanding is that the original facebook posting by Ansar al-Sharia that some show "proved" it was a terroristic attack also alluded to the protests elsewhere and the offense to Islam (in other words the film) that they were protesting against.



The myth that the Adminstration "knew" early on that the film was not in play is just that.


A myth.



The very fact that the Benghazi attack occurred in conjunction with protests elsewhere that no one disputes were motivated by the film is ample evidence, in and of itself, of the possibility the film was a motivating factor in Benghazi, regardless of the nature of the attack there.

If one doesn't wish for public interjection in a debate, I would recommend PMs instead of blogs.

What are you talking about? I was responding to what micatala had written. He and I, and the rest of America, think this is an important issue that needs to be debated and discussed. You apparently dont' care to much about the importance of this issue, about whether the President perpetuated a falsehood to the American people for a week after the attack. If you don't think any of this is of value, then why are you even participating in this thread?

What was the falsehood? I deny your assertion that there was any lying going on.

For one, pretty much all the statements by the Adminstration acknowledged that information was incomplete and still being evaluated.

There was evidence early on that the film was a factor.

I would grant, there turns out to have been no "non-violent" protests in Benghazi. I grant that the bulk of evidence showed that to be the case from early on. However, proving a negative is difficult. I don't see how you can legitimately claim it was lie to say there was a possibility of such protests.


Again, the facebook posting alluded to above included, as I understand, allusions to others besides Ansar al-Sharia that were involved. The same facebook account later changed stories and said they weren't involved at all.

It is unclear to me why one would consider facebook as hard evidence of anything.


I would agree the situation that occurred is serious. I would not say arguing over whether the word "terror" was used sufficiently is a big deal. I would say the people saying it was a "lie" to bring up the possibility of the film being factor are entirely off base, and that that is also somewhat besides the point. Why make a huge issue out of what motivated a bunch of violent extremists?



To me, the bigger deal has to do with decisions that were made in the months leading up to the attack regarding deployment of diplomatic personnel and the security assigned to them. We are now learning that most of the personnel that had been referred to as State Department or military security were really working under the aegis of the CIA. I would be interested to know what the cross-agency discussions were on these issues. I would definitely be interested in knowing who made decisions about security personnel deployments and why. I would be interested in knowing how decisions concerning Libya compared with the process for installations elsewhere. We should know those facts as far as national security issues allow. We should not, for example, reveal unnecessary details of CIA operations to get at left-over Ghaddafi missiles, etc. that terrorists might use, nor the identities of those in Libya who are working with us.