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]

I will agree with East of Eden that the investigation could be interesting.

I have my own questions on all this, such as why was Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi on the night of September 11, and not in Tripoli were there was more security? Of all the nights when members of the Foreign Service should have been on heightened alert, September 11 should have been one of them.

I also think that we’ll never get full answers to the event surrounding the Benghazi attack. This is because the Benghazi office was basically a C.I.A. operation, and the C.I.A. is pretty secretive.

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.

<<<�Are you trying to argue this was some kind of success?�>>>
Of course not. I'm just providing evidence that shows your claim that no one came to the rescue of the employees trapped at the Consulate is wrong. In addition to the (A) response from the Security forces at the C.I.A. annex, and (B) reinforcements from Tripoli, (C) special forces from Germany and Spain were mobilized and moved to Italy, (D) a Predator drone was diverted from another mission, and it arrived in time to oversee the evacuation from the Consulate, and (E) a military transport plane flew the Americans out of Benghazi.

<<<“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.:>>>
To my knowledge, there was no request for more security at Benghazi, let alone a request for “10 special forces guys.� Extra security had been requested for Tripoli, but not for Benghazi.

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.

Hypocrisy noted.

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.

No, what I’m saying is that the Consulate had more security than was requested. There was no security request denied for the Benghazi Consulate.

I brought up the Republican budget plans only to point out more hypocrisy from the right. If House Republicans had had their way, there would have been less, not more security in Libya.

<<<"BTW, the State Department budget has doubled since 2004.">>>
Yes, and much of this was to fortify our Embassies and Consulate buildings in response to 9/11. And many of Embassies are still not up to standard.

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.

Cover for Obama. What the heck are you talking about? An Ambassador is killed; why do you immediately come up with some conspiracy theory? Isn't it possible that the intelligence was wrong, or that the C.I.A. didn't want their presence in Benghazi known?

(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

“Yes it was�, according to Republican Leaders of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. They held a hearing on October 10. According to sworn testimony in that hearing, extra security had been requested for the Embassy in Tripoli, but not for the Consulate in Benghazi.[2] Extra security in Tripoli would not have made any difference during the attack in Benghazi, unless it was possible for them to respond quicker then the Security forces at the C.I.A. annex.

Not true. From a CNN article:

"On Wednesday, the State Department's former point man on security in Libya told the House Oversight Committee that he asked for additional security help for the Benghazi facility months before the attack, but was denied.
Various communications dating back a year asked for three to five diplomatic security agents, according to testimony at Wednesday's hearing. But Eric Nordstrom, the one-time regional security officer, said he verbally asked for 12 agents.
The request for 12 agents was rebuffed by the regional director of the State Department's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, Nordstrom testified.
"For me and my staff, it was abundantly clear that we were not going to get resources until the aftermath of an incident," Nordstrom said."

Even more security at Tripoli probably could have gotten there during the seven hour attack.

[East of Eden]

I don't know where you're coming from, both clips blame the video. I trust the upcoming hearings will get to the bottom of this. I assume you agree if lying happened for political motives it would be a serious matter?

I'll agree the first one does. The second one does not.


But that is beside the point.



Where is there any lying going on?




Why don't you address your false dichotomy and the fact there is evidence the film was a factor.

Why don't you provide evidence that shows the attack was not spontaneous.

Why don't you stop making unfounded assertions of lying when you can't see to back them up.

So you went from nobody in the administration said the film was the cause to admitting one clip does. That's progress.

I look forward to the hearings.

Yes, well when a person is actually willing to look at the evidence reality presents instead of ignoring it, one does make progress.



Can I take it you are retracting your accusation of lying then, especially since you have not provided evidence for it and have yet to respond to repeated challenges regarding your fallacies?

It was either lying or gross incompetency, take your pick. Hopefully the hearings will tell.

[micatala]

I don't know where you're coming from, both clips blame the video. I trust the upcoming hearings will get to the bottom of this. I assume you agree if lying happened for political motives it would be a serious matter?

I'll agree the first one does. The second one does not.


But that is beside the point.



Where is there any lying going on?




Why don't you address your false dichotomy and the fact there is evidence the film was a factor.

Why don't you provide evidence that shows the attack was not spontaneous.

Why don't you stop making unfounded assertions of lying when you can't see to back them up.

So you went from nobody in the administration said the film was the cause to admitting one clip does. That's progress.

I look forward to the hearings.

Yes, well when a person is actually willing to look at the evidence reality presents instead of ignoring it, one does make progress.



Can I take it you are retracting your accusation of lying then, especially since you have not provided evidence for it and have yet to respond to repeated challenges regarding your fallacies?

It was either lying or gross incompetency, take your pick. Hopefully the hearings will tell.

Certainly the hearings might help determine why events unfolded as they did, and why Administration officials spoke about it as they did.


However, I challenge you to show evidence of "gross incompetency" with respect to the statements made about the attack after the fact, and specify who are claiming is incompetent.


At this point, you are still engaging in a false dichotomy.

Even if it were true that there were no reason to refer to the film, which seems not to be true at all based on the evidence, making that statement would not by itself be evidence of gross incompetence.



What is your evidence?

[East of Eden]

I don't know where you're coming from, both clips blame the video. I trust the upcoming hearings will get to the bottom of this. I assume you agree if lying happened for political motives it would be a serious matter?

I'll agree the first one does. The second one does not.


But that is beside the point.



Where is there any lying going on?




Why don't you address your false dichotomy and the fact there is evidence the film was a factor.

Why don't you provide evidence that shows the attack was not spontaneous.

Why don't you stop making unfounded assertions of lying when you can't see to back them up.

So you went from nobody in the administration said the film was the cause to admitting one clip does. That's progress.

I look forward to the hearings.

Yes, well when a person is actually willing to look at the evidence reality presents instead of ignoring it, one does make progress.



Can I take it you are retracting your accusation of lying then, especially since you have not provided evidence for it and have yet to respond to repeated challenges regarding your fallacies?

It was either lying or gross incompetency, take your pick. Hopefully the hearings will tell.

Certainly the hearings might help determine why events unfolded as they did, and why Administration officials spoke about it as they did.


However, I challenge you to show evidence of "gross incompetency" with respect to the statements made about the attack after the fact, and specify who are claiming is incompetent.


At this point, you are still engaging in a false dichotomy.

Even if it were true that there were no reason to refer to the film, which seems not to be true at all based on the evidence, making that statement would not by itself be evidence of gross incompetence.



What is your evidence?

Tell you what, since I'm not getting through to you, why don't you go back and watch the Bob Woodward videos I posted if you don't think there is any problem here. The fact is, the administration know very early it was terror, watched the attack, and yet for long afterwards blamed the film, possibly for political reasons. Then there is the separate question of why additional security was denied at the same time employees were getting hazard pay because it was so dangerous, and why did it take so long for help to arrive.

[micatala]

Tell you what, since I'm not getting through to you, why don't you go back and watch the Bob Woodward videos I posted if you don't think there is any problem here. The fact is, the administration know very early it was terror, watched the attack, and yet for long afterwards blamed the film, possibly for political reasons. Then there is the separate question of why additional security was denied at the same time employees were getting hazard pay because it was so dangerous, and why did it take so long for help to arrive.

Well, I did watch the Woodward video, and he is entitled to his opinion. In addition, as I recall, he is referring to decisions made prior to the event, which is a legitimate issue, but not the one you have been making an issue of here. Woodward did not seem to have any evidence, only his own characterization of what he speculated was going on with this event. I am not saying his view is irrelevant, but it is certainly not proof of either dishonesty or incompetence.


I agree that there is a potential problem with decisions made about the security prior to the event. There is also a potential problem with actions during the event.



However, you are making an issue out of what was said after the event, including statements made about the event.



ANd if anyone is not getting it, I would suggest it is you.


You have not even addressed your false dichotomy.

An event can be inspired by the film and be spontaneous and be an act of terror. There is no inconsistency in suggesting the film was a motivating factor and that it was an act of terror.


You also ignore that there were reports that the Ansar al-Sharia group itself referred to the events in Cairo, which were clearly inspired by the film, and alluded to the film itself.




I again challenge you to show evidence of dishonesty or incompetence.

[nursebenjamin]

I will agree with East of Eden that the investigation could be interesting.

I have my own questions on all this, such as why was Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi on the night of September 11, and not in Tripoli were there was more security? Of all the nights when members of the Foreign Service should have been on heightened alert, September 11 should have been one of them.

I also think that we’ll never get full answers to the event surrounding the Benghazi attack. This is because the Benghazi office was basically a C.I.A. operation, and the C.I.A. is pretty secretive.

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.

<<<�Are you trying to argue this was some kind of success?�>>>
Of course not. I'm just providing evidence that shows your claim that no one came to the rescue of the employees trapped at the Consulate is wrong. In addition to the (A) response from the Security forces at the C.I.A. annex, and (B) reinforcements from Tripoli, (C) special forces from Germany and Spain were mobilized and moved to Italy, (D) a Predator drone was diverted from another mission, and it arrived in time to oversee the evacuation from the Consulate, and (E) a military transport plane flew the Americans out of Benghazi.

<<<“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.:>>>
To my knowledge, there was no request for more security at Benghazi, let alone a request for “10 special forces guys.� Extra security had been requested for Tripoli, but not for Benghazi.

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.

Hypocrisy noted.

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.

No, what I’m saying is that the Consulate had more security than was requested. There was no security request denied for the Benghazi Consulate.

I brought up the Republican budget plans only to point out more hypocrisy from the right. If House Republicans had had their way, there would have been less, not more security in Libya.

<<<"BTW, the State Department budget has doubled since 2004.">>>
Yes, and much of this was to fortify our Embassies and Consulate buildings in response to 9/11. And many of Embassies are still not up to standard.

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.

Cover for Obama. What the heck are you talking about? An Ambassador is killed; why do you immediately come up with some conspiracy theory? Isn't it possible that the intelligence was wrong, or that the C.I.A. didn't want their presence in Benghazi known?

(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

“Yes it was�, according to Republican Leaders of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. They held a hearing on October 10. According to sworn testimony in that hearing, extra security had been requested for the Embassy in Tripoli, but not for the Consulate in Benghazi.[2] Extra security in Tripoli would not have made any difference during the attack in Benghazi, unless it was possible for them to respond quicker then the Security forces at the C.I.A. annex.

Not true. From a CNN article:

"On Wednesday, the State Department's former point man on security in Libya told the House Oversight Committee that he asked for additional security help for the Benghazi facility months before the attack, but was denied.
Various communications dating back a year asked for three to five diplomatic security agents, according to testimony at Wednesday's hearing. But Eric Nordstrom, the one-time regional security officer, said he verbally asked for 12 agents.
The request for 12 agents was rebuffed by the regional director of the State Department's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, Nordstrom testified.
"For me and my staff, it was abundantly clear that we were not going to get resources until the aftermath of an incident," Nordstrom said."

Even more security at Tripoli probably could have gotten there during the seven hour attack.

From a New York Times article:

“The former chief security officer [Eric A. Nordstrom] for the American Embassy in Libya on Wednesday told a House committee investigating the fatal attack last month on a diplomatic compound in Benghazi that his request to extend the deployment of an American military team was thwarted by the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security.

“But a senior State Department official [Patrick Kennedy] said after the hearing by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that keeping the team would not have changed the bloody outcome in Benghazi because it was not based there but in Tripoli.�[3]

The security team in question was based in Tripoli, not in Benghazi. By the way, Tripoli and Benghazi are 400 miles apart.


<<<“Even more security at Tripoli probably could have gotten there during the seven hour attack.�>>>
There were two attacks, not one “seven hour attack�. The consulate was evacuated within an hour of the first attack. Ambassador Stevens could not be found, because (I think) he had already been taken to the hospital by locals. The second attack which killed Doherty and Woods consisted of a mortar attack. It came hours later, and a security team from Tripoli had already arrived and was present at the C.I.A. annex when two mortars landed on the annex’s roof..

[East of Eden]

I will agree with East of Eden that the investigation could be interesting.

I have my own questions on all this, such as why was Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi on the night of September 11, and not in Tripoli were there was more security? Of all the nights when members of the Foreign Service should have been on heightened alert, September 11 should have been one of them.

I also think that we’ll never get full answers to the event surrounding the Benghazi attack. This is because the Benghazi office was basically a C.I.A. operation, and the C.I.A. is pretty secretive.

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.

<<<�Are you trying to argue this was some kind of success?�>>>
Of course not. I'm just providing evidence that shows your claim that no one came to the rescue of the employees trapped at the Consulate is wrong. In addition to the (A) response from the Security forces at the C.I.A. annex, and (B) reinforcements from Tripoli, (C) special forces from Germany and Spain were mobilized and moved to Italy, (D) a Predator drone was diverted from another mission, and it arrived in time to oversee the evacuation from the Consulate, and (E) a military transport plane flew the Americans out of Benghazi.

<<<“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.:>>>
To my knowledge, there was no request for more security at Benghazi, let alone a request for “10 special forces guys.� Extra security had been requested for Tripoli, but not for Benghazi.

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.

Hypocrisy noted.

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.

No, what I’m saying is that the Consulate had more security than was requested. There was no security request denied for the Benghazi Consulate.

I brought up the Republican budget plans only to point out more hypocrisy from the right. If House Republicans had had their way, there would have been less, not more security in Libya.

<<<"BTW, the State Department budget has doubled since 2004.">>>
Yes, and much of this was to fortify our Embassies and Consulate buildings in response to 9/11. And many of Embassies are still not up to standard.

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.

Cover for Obama. What the heck are you talking about? An Ambassador is killed; why do you immediately come up with some conspiracy theory? Isn't it possible that the intelligence was wrong, or that the C.I.A. didn't want their presence in Benghazi known?

(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

“Yes it was�, according to Republican Leaders of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. They held a hearing on October 10. According to sworn testimony in that hearing, extra security had been requested for the Embassy in Tripoli, but not for the Consulate in Benghazi.[2] Extra security in Tripoli would not have made any difference during the attack in Benghazi, unless it was possible for them to respond quicker then the Security forces at the C.I.A. annex.

Not true. From a CNN article:

"On Wednesday, the State Department's former point man on security in Libya told the House Oversight Committee that he asked for additional security help for the Benghazi facility months before the attack, but was denied.
Various communications dating back a year asked for three to five diplomatic security agents, according to testimony at Wednesday's hearing. But Eric Nordstrom, the one-time regional security officer, said he verbally asked for 12 agents.
The request for 12 agents was rebuffed by the regional director of the State Department's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, Nordstrom testified.
"For me and my staff, it was abundantly clear that we were not going to get resources until the aftermath of an incident," Nordstrom said."

Even more security at Tripoli probably could have gotten there during the seven hour attack.

From a New York Times article:

“The former chief security officer [Eric A. Nordstrom] for the American Embassy in Libya on Wednesday told a House committee investigating the fatal attack last month on a diplomatic compound in Benghazi that his request to extend the deployment of an American military team was thwarted by the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security.

“But a senior State Department official [Patrick Kennedy] said after the hearing by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that keeping the team would not have changed the bloody outcome in Benghazi because it was not based there but in Tripoli.�[3]

The security team in question was based in Tripoli, not in Benghazi. By the way, Tripoli and Benghazi are 400 miles apart.


<<<“Even more security at Tripoli probably could have gotten there during the seven hour attack.�>>>
There were two attacks, not one “seven hour attack�.

Not really. From the link below:

"According to a senior U.S. defense official, “This was not one long continuous fight, but two separate incidents at two separate facilities with some separation of time.�

However, British sources who were near the consulate and annex that night tell a different story, saying there was almost continuous fire on the annex after the team fled from the consulate."

The consulate was evacuated within an hour of the first attack. Ambassador Stevens could not be found, because (I think) he had already been taken to the hospital by locals. The second attack which killed Doherty and Woods consisted of a mortar attack. It came hours later, and a security team from Tripoli had already arrived and was present at the C.I.A. annex when two mortars landed on the annex’s roof..

Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were killed by mortar almost 8 hours after the attack began. Serious reinforcements did not arrive for 20 hours, even though they were in Croatia a few hours away.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11 ... questions/

The same author of this link writing elsewhere:

"There is much to question here. Why did it take so long for the special forces C-130 to get there? Did the Libyans refuse permission to enter their air space? Did Obama get cold feet and decide not to go in? Why does the Obama admin keep suggesting that F-16's would have been ineffective, when they have been killing Jihadists for a decade? This too smacks of the One getting cold feet about using close air support. They always add the effective or targeting caveat, when discussing the availability of CAS. Now, Patreus and Clinton are probably going to claim the inability to get in front of a House committee investigating this matter. They can't hide forever.

I think Obama withheld air support. I think he tried to cover up the incompetence of the CIA/State Libyan operation by blaming it on a video and not Muslim terror groups.

If this had happened on the eve of a George Bush election, the media would have turned the homes of everyone involved into a camp site. But, since the One was the incumbent, they yawned and lacked much curiosity. Such is the state of the US mainstream media."

[East of Eden]

Tell you what, since I'm not getting through to you, why don't you go back and watch the Bob Woodward videos I posted if you don't think there is any problem here. The fact is, the administration know very early it was terror, watched the attack, and yet for long afterwards blamed the film, possibly for political reasons. Then there is the separate question of why additional security was denied at the same time employees were getting hazard pay because it was so dangerous, and why did it take so long for help to arrive.

Well, I did watch the Woodward video, and he is entitled to his opinion. In addition, as I recall, he is referring to decisions made prior to the event, which is a legitimate issue, but not the one you have been making an issue of here. Woodward did not seem to have any evidence, only his own characterization of what he speculated was going on with this event. I am not saying his view is irrelevant, but it is certainly not proof of either dishonesty or incompetence.


I agree that there is a potential problem with decisions made about the security prior to the event. There is also a potential problem with actions during the event.



However, you are making an issue out of what was said after the event, including statements made about the event.



ANd if anyone is not getting it, I would suggest it is you.


You have not even addressed your false dichotomy.

An event can be inspired by the film and be spontaneous and be an act of terror. There is no inconsistency in suggesting the film was a motivating factor and that it was an act of terror.


You also ignore that there were reports that the Ansar al-Sharia group itself referred to the events in Cairo, which were clearly inspired by the film, and alluded to the film itself.




I again challenge you to show evidence of dishonesty or incompetence.

I have already done so, whether you are willing to admit it or not. The administration saw the attack in real time, there was no crowd milling about upset with the film that spontaneously attacked. Mortars and RPGs are generally pre-planned ingredients.

Were the two earlier attacks on the embassy also due to the film? Shouldn't they have been a little bit of a tip that security needed to be increased? Our deceased ambassador certainly thought so.

[nursebenjamin]

I will agree with East of Eden that the investigation could be interesting.

I have my own questions on all this, such as why was Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi on the night of September 11, and not in Tripoli were there was more security? Of all the nights when members of the Foreign Service should have been on heightened alert, September 11 should have been one of them.

I also think that we’ll never get full answers to the event surrounding the Benghazi attack. This is because the Benghazi office was basically a C.I.A. operation, and the C.I.A. is pretty secretive.

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.

<<<�Are you trying to argue this was some kind of success?�>>>
Of course not. I'm just providing evidence that shows your claim that no one came to the rescue of the employees trapped at the Consulate is wrong. In addition to the (A) response from the Security forces at the C.I.A. annex, and (B) reinforcements from Tripoli, (C) special forces from Germany and Spain were mobilized and moved to Italy, (D) a Predator drone was diverted from another mission, and it arrived in time to oversee the evacuation from the Consulate, and (E) a military transport plane flew the Americans out of Benghazi.

<<<“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.:>>>
To my knowledge, there was no request for more security at Benghazi, let alone a request for “10 special forces guys.� Extra security had been requested for Tripoli, but not for Benghazi.

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.

Hypocrisy noted.

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.

No, what I’m saying is that the Consulate had more security than was requested. There was no security request denied for the Benghazi Consulate.

I brought up the Republican budget plans only to point out more hypocrisy from the right. If House Republicans had had their way, there would have been less, not more security in Libya.

<<<"BTW, the State Department budget has doubled since 2004.">>>
Yes, and much of this was to fortify our Embassies and Consulate buildings in response to 9/11. And many of Embassies are still not up to standard.

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.

Cover for Obama. What the heck are you talking about? An Ambassador is killed; why do you immediately come up with some conspiracy theory? Isn't it possible that the intelligence was wrong, or that the C.I.A. didn't want their presence in Benghazi known?

(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

“Yes it was�, according to Republican Leaders of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. They held a hearing on October 10. According to sworn testimony in that hearing, extra security had been requested for the Embassy in Tripoli, but not for the Consulate in Benghazi.[2] Extra security in Tripoli would not have made any difference during the attack in Benghazi, unless it was possible for them to respond quicker then the Security forces at the C.I.A. annex.

Not true. From a CNN article:

"On Wednesday, the State Department's former point man on security in Libya told the House Oversight Committee that he asked for additional security help for the Benghazi facility months before the attack, but was denied.
Various communications dating back a year asked for three to five diplomatic security agents, according to testimony at Wednesday's hearing. But Eric Nordstrom, the one-time regional security officer, said he verbally asked for 12 agents.
The request for 12 agents was rebuffed by the regional director of the State Department's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, Nordstrom testified.
"For me and my staff, it was abundantly clear that we were not going to get resources until the aftermath of an incident," Nordstrom said."

Even more security at Tripoli probably could have gotten there during the seven hour attack.

From a New York Times article:

“The former chief security officer [Eric A. Nordstrom] for the American Embassy in Libya on Wednesday told a House committee investigating the fatal attack last month on a diplomatic compound in Benghazi that his request to extend the deployment of an American military team was thwarted by the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security.

“But a senior State Department official [Patrick Kennedy] said after the hearing by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that keeping the team would not have changed the bloody outcome in Benghazi because it was not based there but in Tripoli.�[3]

The security team in question was based in Tripoli, not in Benghazi. By the way, Tripoli and Benghazi are 400 miles apart.


<<<“Even more security at Tripoli probably could have gotten there during the seven hour attack.�>>>
There were two attacks, not one “seven hour attack�. … The second attack which killed Doherty and Woods consisted of a mortar attack. It came hours later, and a security team from Tripoli had already arrived and was present at the C.I.A. annex when two mortars landed on the annex’s roof.

Not really. From the link below:

"According to a senior U.S. defense official, “This was not one long continuous fight, but two separate incidents at two separate facilities with some separation of time.�

However, British sources who were near the consulate and annex that night tell a different story, saying there was almost continuous fire on the annex after the team fled from the consulate."

We’ve already discussed that fact that “there was almost continuous fire on the annex after the team fled from the consulate.� Small arms fire went on for a couple of hours, and at some point stopped. The security team at the annex believed that the attack was over. In reality, the attackers were getting in position and waiting for the right opportunity for a mortar attack.

Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were killed by mortar almost 8 hours after the attack began. Serious reinforcements did not arrive for 20 hours, even though they were in Croatia a few hours away.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11 ... questions/

The same author of this link writing elsewhere:

"There is much to question here. Why did it take so long for the special forces C-130 to get there? Did the Libyans refuse permission to enter their air space? Did Obama get cold feet and decide not to go in? Why does the Obama admin keep suggesting that F-16's would have been ineffective, when they have been killing Jihadists for a decade? This too smacks of the One getting cold feet about using close air support. They always add the effective or targeting caveat, when discussing the availability of CAS. Now, Patreus and Clinton are probably going to claim the inability to get in front of a House committee investigating this matter. They can't hide forever.

I think Obama withheld air support. I think he tried to cover up the incompetence of the CIA/State Libyan operation by blaming it on a video and not Muslim terror groups.

If this had happened on the eve of a George Bush election, the media would have turned the homes of everyone involved into a camp site. But, since the One was the incumbent, they yawned and lacked much curiosity. Such is the state of the US mainstream media."

<<<“I think Obama withheld air support.�>>>
What for? Do you think that Obama intentionally allowed Americans to die? I’m not following your thought process. The U.S. military is the best in the world, but it can not possibly know everything and be everywhere. It typically doesn’t undertake missions without a well-thought out plan of action. What makes you think that we could have gotten air support to Benghazi in time, and that using such would have been successful without a bunch of civilian/friendly causalities?

You realize that by the time Obama knew of the attack, the Consulate had already been evacuated and a security team from Tripoli was about to arrive in Benghazi, right?

<<<“I think he tried to cover up the incompetence of the CIA/State Libyan operation by blaming it on a video and not Muslim terror groups.�>>>
I think that the security teams based at the annex and Tripoli acted quickly and heroically. To me, it looks as if there was an all out scramble to save their colleagues at the Consulate. They did so at great risk to their own safety, and two of the rescuers lost their lives doing so.

[micatala]

Tell you what, since I'm not getting through to you, why don't you go back and watch the Bob Woodward videos I posted if you don't think there is any problem here. The fact is, the administration know very early it was terror, watched the attack, and yet for long afterwards blamed the film, possibly for political reasons. Then there is the separate question of why additional security was denied at the same time employees were getting hazard pay because it was so dangerous, and why did it take so long for help to arrive.

Well, I did watch the Woodward video, and he is entitled to his opinion. In addition, as I recall, he is referring to decisions made prior to the event, which is a legitimate issue, but not the one you have been making an issue of here. Woodward did not seem to have any evidence, only his own characterization of what he speculated was going on with this event. I am not saying his view is irrelevant, but it is certainly not proof of either dishonesty or incompetence.


I agree that there is a potential problem with decisions made about the security prior to the event. There is also a potential problem with actions during the event.



However, you are making an issue out of what was said after the event, including statements made about the event.



ANd if anyone is not getting it, I would suggest it is you.


You have not even addressed your false dichotomy.

An event can be inspired by the film and be spontaneous and be an act of terror. There is no inconsistency in suggesting the film was a motivating factor and that it was an act of terror.


You also ignore that there were reports that the Ansar al-Sharia group itself referred to the events in Cairo, which were clearly inspired by the film, and alluded to the film itself.




I again challenge you to show evidence of dishonesty or incompetence.

I have already done so, whether you are willing to admit it or not. The administration saw the attack in real time, there was no crowd milling about upset with the film that spontaneously attacked. Mortars and RPGs are generally pre-planned ingredients.

Were the two earlier attacks on the embassy also due to the film? Shouldn't they have been a little bit of a tip that security needed to be increased? Our deceased ambassador certainly thought so.

I see no evidence provided that lying or incompetence was going on with respect to the response to the attack or comments made about the attack afterwards. I asked you to specify who was lying and what the lie was, and the same with the incompetence. I am not sure that clarification was provided, so I'll ask again, just so we are clear on exactly whay your accusations are.


I'll accept there are a lot of legitimate questions about decisions in the weeks and months prior to the attack, but I don't believe your original accusations of lying or incompetence were in reference to those, only to what was being said about the attack afterwards.


You say the Administration saw the attack in real time. This by itself does not support your accusations. YOu, in fact, don't know what they saw. When we get details from the hearings, this may be clarified.

You claim "there was no crowd milling about upset with the film that spontaneously attacked. Mortars and RPGs are generally pre-planned ingredients."

"Generally" does indicate it is more likely to have had some pre-planning, but is not conclusive. Not having a crowd milling around is not evidence those who were there were not motivated by the film. It is not evidence, certainly not conclusive evidence, the attack was not spontaneous.




You also continue to avoid explaining the following.










Why is it impossible for the attack to be both a terrorist attack and motivated in part by the film?

If you cannot explain this, you have zero grounds for accusing Rice of lying.






This is not even addressing the evidence, that you also have completely ignored, that the flm was possibly, even likely, part of the motivating factor for the attack.


For now, I will forego addressing the details of what we know about the Senate hearings until they are completed, which I believe will be some time next week. It is fair to say at this point that the testimony and evidence is likely to debunk much of the accusations of lying, particularly with respect to Ambassador Rice, and the various conspiracy theories being bandied about.