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?

[cnorman18]

You haven't proved any of my claims false. You have simply proven that you don't believe them.

Excuse me?

In post 185, you posted this:

This latest report simply evades and obscures the real issue, which was the refusal of the Obama administration to allow any response to calls for help from the Benghazi mission, and then punishing a couple of military officers who protested that refusal.

I posted material from the book which showed, with documentation, where that scurrilous LIE originated, and showed proof that it was and remains a LIE -- including this: “In fact, no stand-down order had been given. Less than 90 minutes after the attacks began, then- Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey first briefed the president on the situation in Benghazi. According to Panetta, it was at this meeting that Obama ordered "all available DOD assets to respond to the attack in Libra and to protect U.S. personnel and interests in the region." Gen. Dempsey himself has also confirmed this account.

There was also this, from the supposed SOURCE of this fictitious “refusal to allow any response" rumor: “Lt. Col. Gibson himself denied having received a stand-down order.�

You had precisely nothing to say in rebuttal to any of this evidence; on the contrary, you then repeated the claim that General Carter Ham and Rear Admiral Charles Gaouette were "fired by Obama for wanting to come to the assistance of the beleaguered U.S. missions in Benghazi".

So I posted remarks from General Ham himself which showed that to be false -- and I also posted the Inspector General of the Navy's own report which proved that Gaouette's being relieved of command had nothing to do with Benghazi.

And now you say I haven’t proved your claims false, only that I don’t believe them?

You’re going to stand by your claims in the face of all this, even as you STILL refuse to provide any kind of substantive evidence or documentation for them?

Even as you refuse to even ACKNOWLEDGE the 13 attacks on U.S. embassies, and the more than 40 deaths that resulted from them, under the Bush II administration?

Can you explain your reasoning to me? If it’s not devotion to IDEOLOGY as opposed to the FACTS, what is it?

I have to wonder; is there ANY proof that would satisfy you? Are you convinced with a rock-solid faith that can’t be broken that everyone but your unnamed sources is LYING here, including the people who were directly involved and should be more outraged than anyone if these claims were true?

Actually, I would like to read your book.

Just to make sure there's no confusion -- it's not MY book. David Brock, formerly a darling of the Right who shifted leftward during the Bush administration, wrote it.

I don't have a smartphone or e-reader and don't plan to buy one, but I will order the book as a paperback. Perhaps you could tell me why you think it is any more "factual" than any other source?

Because it is heavily footnoted and gives documented and verified sources for its statements -- as opposed to using unnamed sources of unverified rumors.

Benghazi was a tragedy; but there was no treason, no coverup, and no "scandal" there. None. It was just one more of the fake "scandals" that the Right has been trying to hang on the President since he first took office -- like the IRS "scandal," the birth certificate "scandal," the AP "scandal," and so on. As these fake "scandals" keep falling to the ground in pieces, the Right keeps returning to Benghazi. There's nothing there either. Never was. Still isn't.

Now: What actual evidence can you present to prove your claims? Merely repeating your belief in them isn't evidence, you know. What have you got?

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 201 by cnorman18]

cnorman18 wrote:

Now: What actual evidence can you present to prove your claims? Merely repeating your belief in them isn't evidence, you know. What have you got?

I congratulate you on your aggressive defense of your position. I remain unconvinced that any attempt was made to defend the American embassy at Benghazi either before or during the attack, but I give you a victory on technical debate points.

If, as you claim, Obama did order "all available assets" of the DOD into action, it is rather frightening that those assets were so ineffective and hesitant to act, is it not?

As for my "ideology," I am an American. There seems to be so few of us left! Thanks for not calling me Conservative. I am certainly right-wing, but I resent the Conservative title since it was usurped by the Bible-thumpers.

[cnorman18]

[Replying to post 202 by JohnPaul]
In other words, you have nothing. You're sticking to your position, even though you have, quite literally, no reason whatever to do so -- and you're trying to cover by saying all this was only about some sort of "technical debate points"??

Aren’t you the guy who said, “A well-intentioned difference of ideology is one thing, but make no mistake about it. We are not debating some abstract point of theology here. We are debating a coverup of murder and treason, and that is quite another thing.�

I quite agree. "Technical debate points," my hind foot. We’re talking about FACTS here. You made FACTUAL claims; I presented documentary evidence from primary sources with first-hand knowledge of events that DISPROVES those claims. And you have refused to accept it -- without comment.

You presented nothing at all in response to the evidence I presented, or to the other issues I raised -- including the many more attacks on US Embassies, and the many more deaths of diplomats and other civilians, during the Bush administration. In response to all that, you have had nothing to say. That's not a "technical" observation. It is, once again, a FACT.

Do you have some other reason for rejecting this evidence and, in effect, sitting this debate out, other than your own admitted right-wing ideology? You’ve presented none.

As for your latest claims -- read the book, and then get back to me.

For the moment, I think I'm done here. It's not really a "debate" unless both participants actually engage and discuss the evidence, you see. IGNORING and DISMISSING the evidence, with no explanation at all, isn't the procedure.

In short, I'm done wasting my time on this thread. The old "talking to a brick wall" analogy clearly applies here.

[micatala]

[Replying to post 197 by cnorman18]

(sigh) You are making the common liberal spin of equating "right wing" with "lies." A well-intentioned difference of ideology is one thing, but make no mistake about it. We are not debating some abstract point of theology here. We are debating a coverup of murder and treason, and that is quite another thing. As I said before, Obama was either responsible or he was irresponsible.

Again, this argument is fallacious as I noted before. Obama killed no one. There was no 'cover up' of the murders or killings that were committed by, one presumes, a few of the residents of Libya on that day. These accusations are neither logical nor supported by the facts, as cnorman has shown in detail.

I would agree with your implication that ideology is different than truth. Too often, however, those (e.g. on FOX) respond to evidence showing they are wrong with accusations that those providing the evidence are simply unwilling to consider that those with an opposing ideology can be right. Just because some one shows a person on the right is wrong, does not mean they are ideologically motivated or that the facts should be dismissed with accusations of 'liberal bias.'

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 204 by micatala]

micatala wrote:

Again, this argument is fallacious as I noted before. Obama killed no one. There was no 'cover up' of the murders or killings that were committed by, one presumes, a few of the residents of Libya on that day. These accusations are neither logical nor supported by the facts, as cnorman has shown in detail.

I did not say that Obama ever killed anyone. What I did say was that no attempt was made to respond to a call for help from a serving American ambassador, whose embassy, a sovereign extension of the United States, was under attack in a foreign country. When such a call was received, Obama instantly became Commander in Chief with a constitutional duty to put all political games on hold and to make every effort to defend the United States. As anyone with any military service should know, "Dereliction of Duty" and "Misbehavior Before the Enemy," even by negligence, are offenses under Article 99 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, punishable by death.

Speaking hypothetically, of course. The NSA is watching us.

[cnorman18]

[Replying to post 204 by micatala]

micatala wrote:

Again, this argument is fallacious as I noted before. Obama killed no one. There was no 'cover up' of the murders or killings that were committed by, one presumes, a few of the residents of Libya on that day. These accusations are neither logical nor supported by the facts, as cnorman has shown in detail.

I did not say that Obama ever killed anyone. What I did say was that no attempt was made to respond to a call for help from a serving American ambassador, whose embassy, a sovereign extension of the United States, was under attack in a foreign country. When such a call was received, Obama instantly became Commander in Chief with a constitutional duty to put all political games on hold and to make every effort to defend the United States. As anyone with any military service should know, "Dereliction of Duty" and "Misbehavior Before the Enemy," even by negligence, are offenses under Article 99 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, punishable by death.

Unfortunately, I have already conclusively proven that your yet-again-repeated claim, which I have bolded above, is completely false. Your recitation of the UCMJ's Article 99 is therefore totally irrelevant, since no such offenses took place. The fact that you still refuse to accept those FACTS, and have still presented NO EVIDENCE WHATEVER to counter them, remains a matter of record.

If you believe that such offenses DID take place, it is incumbent upon you to present evidence to that effect. Otherwise, you might want to think about the US civil statutes about "slander" and "libel."

Just FYI; Neither of the Benghazi compounds (plural) where the attacks (plural) took place were "embassies," nor were they even "consulates": one, where the Ambassador and one other diplomat was killed, was a CIA mission, and the other, where two more Americans were killed, was an annex about a mile away that had no formal diplomatic status at all. Neither was a "sovereign extension of the United States." Did you not even know that?

Have you read that book yet? Will you?

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 204 by micatala]

micatala wrote:

Again, this argument is fallacious as I noted before. Obama killed no one. There was no 'cover up' of the murders or killings that were committed by, one presumes, a few of the residents of Libya on that day. These accusations are neither logical nor supported by the facts, as cnorman has shown in detail.

I did not say that Obama ever killed anyone. What I did say was that no attempt was made to respond to a call for help from a serving American ambassador, whose embassy, a sovereign extension of the United States, was under attack in a foreign country. When such a call was received, Obama instantly became Commander in Chief with a constitutional duty to put all political games on hold and to make every effort to defend the United States. As anyone with any military service should know, "Dereliction of Duty" and "Misbehavior Before the Enemy," even by negligence, are offenses under Article 99 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, punishable by death.

Unfortunately, I have already conclusively proven that your yet-again-repeated claim, which I have bolded above, is completely false. Your recitation of the UCMJ's Article 99 is therefore totally irrelevant, since no such offenses took place. The fact that you still refuse to accept those FACTS, and have still presented NO EVIDENCE WHATEVER to counter them, remains a matter of record.

If you believe that such offenses DID take place, it is incumbent upon you to present evidence to that effect. Otherwise, you might want to think about the US civil statutes about "slander" and "libel."

Just FYI; Neither of the Benghazi compounds (plural) where the attacks (plural) took place were "embassies," nor were they even "consulates": one, where the Ambassador and one other diplomat was killed, was a CIA mission, and the other, where two more Americans were killed, was an annex about a mile away that had no formal diplomatic status at all. Neither was a "sovereign extension of the United States." Did you not even know that?

Have you read that book yet? Will you?

A couple of questions.

1. What attempts were made, other than your alleged verbal order to "all DOD assets," to actually send aid before or during the attack? I have read reports that fighter jets could have easily reached the compound. Why did they fail?

2. Why are you so upset? Surely you have heard worse accusations against US administrations? Ruby Ridge? Waco? Oklahoma City? Fast and Furious?

[cnorman18]

You want more? Okay. Here's more.

A couple of questions.

1. What attempts were made, other than your alleged verbal order to "all DOD assets," to actually send aid before or during the attack?

Since you ask:

According to the timeline [released by the CIA -- link to the PDF below], the first call for help from the consulate was received at the CIA’s nearby Benghazi headquarters – referred to as a diplomatic annex by U.S. officials – at around 9:40 p.m., which is when the attack began.

“Fewer than 25 minutes later, a security team left the annex for the mission,� said the timeline, which added that the group spent about 25 minutes trying to take out militants firing heavy weapons as it fought its way to the walled compound and then entered it under heavy fire.

At 11:11 p.m., according to the timeline, an unmanned surveillance drone arrived over the complex while the CIA security team, which comprised about six officers, rounded up the approximately 30 staff members on the consulate premises and prepared to move them to the annex. The security team at that point had recovered Smith’s body but had been unable to locate Stevens, who local Libyan guards had spirited out a backdoor to a local hospital, where he was pronounced dead from smoke inhalation.

The CIA security team and the mission staff drove out of the consulate under fire and returned to the annex, which had come under sporadic small arms and rocket-propelled grenade fire.

About the same time, according to the timeline, a team of about six CIA security officers and two U.S. military officers landed at Benghazi airport on a flight from Tripoli and began negotiating for transportation into the city.

After learning that Stevens was missing and that the initial attack on the annex had ended, the second team decided to concentrate on finding the ambassador.

“Still pre-dawn timeframe, that team at the airport finally manages to secure transportation and armed escort and – having learned that the ambassador was almost certainly dead and that the security situation at the hospital was uncertain – heads to the annex to assist with the evacuation,� the timeline said.

Backed by Libyan security men, the second team arrived at the CIA annex at 5:15 a.m., just before mortar rounds began hitting the building in a barrage that lasted 11 minutes. One round claimed the lives of Wood and Doherty.

A heavily armed Libyan military unit arrived less than an hour later and helped escort the U.S. personnel to the airport for a U.S. military evacuation flight.

So the first response team came from within Benghazi itself within 25 minutes. A second, from the CIA's Tripoli office, arrived very early the next morning -- and proof of that is that two of those killed in the attacks were actually members of that supposedly nonexistent response team.

Within 12 hours of the initial attack, all the surviving members of the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, along with the bodies of the dead, had been evacuated from the city and were on their way to Ramstein, Germany.

NONE of the other forces that had been preparing for deployment could have reached Benghazi before the attacks were entirely over and all U.S. personnel evacuated -- and there were at least four such teams, besides the two that did in fact reach the compound during the attacks; two Fleet Antiterrorism Security (FAST) Teams based in Rota, Spain; a EUCOM special operations force which was training in Central Europe and was preparing to deploy to a staging base in Southern Europe; and a special operations force based in the U.S. which was preparing to deploy to Southern Europe as well. Here is a PDF of the official CIA timeline sent to the House Committee on Armed Services by the Assistant Secretary of Defense. The sequence of events is made very clear indeed, and makes it even clearer that these "reports" of an Administration and a President who were indifferent and idle are absolute and deliberate fabrications and outright lies.

I have read reports that fighter jets could have easily reached the compound. Why did they fail?

Here are the remarks of former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who was SecDef under President George W. Bush and continued his service under the Obama Administration, in an interview broadcast on Face the Nation on May 12, 2013:

GATES: I think the one place where I might be able to say something useful has to do with some of the talk of the military response. And I listened to the testimony of both Secretary Panetta and General Dempsey, and frankly had I been in the job at the time, I think that my decisions would have been just as theirs were. We don't have a ready force standing by in the Middle East, despite all the turmoil that's going on with planes on strip alert, troops ready to deploy at a moment's notice. And so getting someone there in a timely way would have been very difficult if not impossible.

And frankly I've heard, well, why didn't you just fly a fighter jet over there to scare 'em with the noise or something. Given the number of surface to air missiles that have disappeared from Qaddafi's arsenals I would not have approved sending an aircraft, a single aircraft, over Benghazi under those circumstances.

And with respect to sending in Special Forces or a small group of people to try and provide help, based on everything I've read people really didn't know what was going on in Benghazi contemporaneously, and to send some small number of Special Forces or other troops in without knowing what the environment is, without knowing what the threat is, without having any intelligence in terms of what is actually going on on the ground, I think would have been very dangerous and personally I would not have approved that because we just don't -- it's sort of a cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces. The one thing our forces are noted for is planning and preparation before we send people in harm's way, and there just wasn't time.

Further, from Wired.com:

[General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] and other top Pentagon officials have previously testified that they could not get commandos or fighter planes into Benghazi in time to save the lives of Amb. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. There was an unarmed surveillance drone over Benghazi, but Air Force fighters in Italy’s Aviano air base lacked refueling tankers to allow them to get to the scene. Special-operations teams in the U.S. and Croatia were initially told to prepare for Benghazi, for a possible hostage-rescue mission, but they ultimately didn’t get closer than a staging base in Europe before the attacks ended.

Aside from the fact that there was no way for them to reach Benghazi in less than a matter of days, as opposed to hours -- what, exactly, do you think fighter jets could have done? Fly over a city where the population is mostly supportive of the U.S. mission and just start strafing people? Drop some bombs on the compounds and kill EVERYBODY?

2. Why are you so upset?

Why are you pretending I'm upset? Have you run out of other things to toss up in the air? I have been replying to your evidence-free posts by posting documented and verified factual information, links, and quotes in a very objective manner.

I am certainly passionate about this subject; I very much dislike seeing ANY President -- and that included George W. Bush during his administration -- deliberately and consciously smeared with calculated misstatements, deliberate distortions of fact, and previously known and proven falsehoods -- not to mention seeing the names of four brave Americans who gave their lives for this country paraded and exploited for purely partisan political purposes. I remind you that two of those Americans were part of a rescue operation that, to hear the Right tell it, never came.

Sorry, but pretending that one's opponent is emotionally "upset" as a way of diverting the debate and discrediting his posts is a very old and very tired tactic on this forum. Try another -- like maybe actually posting some real evidence or documentation of your repeated false claims.

Surely you have heard worse accusations against US administrations? Ruby Ridge? Waco? Oklahoma City? Fast and Furious?

Those were not mere "accusations." They were actually -- most of them -- based on FACTS. Ruby Ridge and Waco were travesties (I was living less than 30 miles from Waco when that inexcusable assault occurred, and spoke to many of the locals about it.) I am no flaming knee-jerk liberal, as you seem to be trying to imply; I voted for Reagan twice and both Bushes. I have a CHL and carry a firearm daily. I fly the United States Flag at my front door every day. You want to stereotype me? Good luck with that.

I have no idea what you're talking about when you refer to the Oklahoma City bombing as an "accusation" against any administration; that was a terrorist act committed by an extreme right-wing nutcase and "militia" member. "Fast and Furious" was the successor to the precisely similar "Operation Wide Receiver," which began under the Bush administration. Both were evidence of gross incompetence and ludicrously stupid planning, but neither reached to the White House level. The problems in both programs seems to have begun and ended in the Phoenix office of the BATF.

So much for all these attempted distractions. Let's stay with the subject of this thread without any further attempts at changing the subject, shall we?

I see that you STILL have not posted anything other than more unsourced rumors and unsourced "reports" you have read -- somewhere, no knowing where -- about Benghazi. Those "reports" seem, from what you have posted, to be invariably from wildly inaccurate and accusatory rightwing sources that you do not name, let alone post links to; nor have you responded in any way to the FACT of the 13 murderous embassy attacks on George W. Bush's watch.

What else have you got? From what I've seen, the answer is still nothing.

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 208 by cnorman18]

cnorman18 wrote:

Those were not mere "accusations." They were actually -- most of them -- based on FACTS. Ruby Ridge and Waco were travesties (I was living less than 30 miles from Waco when that inexcusable assault occurred, and spoke to many of the locals about it.) I am no flaming knee-jerk liberal, as you seem to be trying to imply; I voted for Reagan twice and both Bushes. I have a CHL and carry a firearm daily. I fly the United States Flag at my front door every day. You want to stereotype me? Good luck with that.

Good. I withdraw any unkind thoughts I might have had about you personally, and I thank you for your detailed timeline of events. I had heard most of it before, but it all adds up to the heroic actions of a few individuals but still no effective military response before, during or after the attack. If this is an example of our "War on Terror," we should wave a white flag now and learn to speak Arabic.

As for the Oklahoma City bombing, don't you think the never-identified "third man" who supplied materials for the bomb, the anonymous warning phone call to the federal judge in the building, the immediate seizure and confiscation of evidence at the scene by unnamed "federal agents," the unusually rapid capture and execution of McVeigh, the only credible witness, and the later suppression and ridicule of the local DA who wanted a further investigation, have all the earmarks of a badly botched ATF sting operation?

Yes, I admit I am disturbed and enraged by these events.

[cnorman18]

[Replying to post 208 by cnorman18]

cnorman18 wrote:

Those were not mere "accusations." They were actually -- most of them -- based on FACTS. Ruby Ridge and Waco were travesties (I was living less than 30 miles from Waco when that inexcusable assault occurred, and spoke to many of the locals about it.) I am no flaming knee-jerk liberal, as you seem to be trying to imply; I voted for Reagan twice and both Bushes. I have a CHL and carry a firearm daily. I fly the United States Flag at my front door every day. You want to stereotype me? Good luck with that.

Good. I withdraw any unkind thoughts I might have had about you personally, and I thank you for your detailed timeline of events. I had heard most of it before, but it all adds up to the heroic actions of a few individuals but still no effective military response before, during or after the attack. If this is an example of our "War on Terror," we should wave a white flag now and learn to speak Arabic.

Not sure what you expected. We really DON'T have instantly available quick-response Special Forces units on call all over the world 24-7, you see. I think that's what Secretary Gates meant when he spoke of a "cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces." This entire incident, from beginning to end, took less than 12 hours.

Sorry, but Thor, Captain America, Superman and The Flash are not on the Government payroll.

As for the Oklahoma City bombing, don't you think the never-identified "third man" who supplied materials for the bomb, the anonymous warning phone call to the federal judge in the building, the immediate seizure and confiscation of evidence at the scene by unnamed "federal agents," the unusually rapid capture and execution of McVeigh, the only credible witness, and the later suppression and ridicule of the local DA who wanted a further investigation, have all the earmarks of a badly botched ATF sting operation?

Yes, I admit I am disturbed and enraged by these events.

I think I'll decline to participate in your attempt to change the subject.

Is this all you have to say? No comment on the embassy attacks on Bush's watch?