Benghazi Redux Poll

[Flem72]

Just asking....

[kenberg]

Firstly, I don't know. It seems to be complicated and I have a life to lead. But all in all, a thorough airing could perhaps be useful. Politics being as it is, I can't say I expect everything to be done in a spirit of just finding the truth. It will surprise me if, after all is said and done, the statements made after the event will. still be seen as a completely honest mistake.

 

Time and time again we see that people make mistakes. Quite human to do so. And then they try to cover up their mistake. Which is almost always another mistake. Probably we will find no villains. Probably we will find some really bad judgment.

[awm]

I think this is a pretty transparent political ploy to make Barack Obama and/or Hillary Clinton look bad.

 

The thing is, there are legitimate questions that could be asked about why a consulate in a pretty dangerous part of the world wasn't better protected, and perhaps about how US intelligence didn't anticipate this event. However, as far as I can tell these legitimate questions are not the focus of the investigation. Instead, the investigation focuses on why UN Ambassador Susan Rice didn't immediately announce on TV that it was a terrorist attack and start laying blame. The other questions seem to be "who knew what when?" and "who changed the talking points and why?" and "when Obama said this was an act of terror, was that the same as saying it was a terrorist attack, and why didn't he name specific terrorist organizations?" None of these strike me as being legitimate issues at all. Obviously the government may not want to lay everything out in a public forum when an investigation and possible counterstrike is still ongoing! In fact it would have been irresponsible for the administration to give out this information at that time... and even if they misjudged the sensitivity of the situation slightly that hardly merits an investigation.

[blackshoe]

The real questions, to my mind, are "why was nothing done about the ambassador's requests for increased security during the weeks prior to the attack?" and "why was no aid forthcoming during the attack?"

[GreenMan]

The real questions, to my mind, are "why was nothing done about the ambassador's requests for increased security during the weeks prior to the attack?" and "why was no aid forthcoming during the attack?"

 

Those were both answered long ago.

[mike777]

I think this is a pretty transparent political ploy to make Barack Obama and/or Hillary Clinton look bad.

 

The thing is, there are legitimate questions that could be asked about why a consulate in a pretty dangerous part of the world wasn't better protected, and perhaps about how US intelligence didn't anticipate this event. However, as far as I can tell these legitimate questions are not the focus of the investigation. Instead, the investigation focuses on why UN Ambassador Susan Rice didn't immediately announce on TV that it was a terrorist attack and start laying blame. The other questions seem to be "who knew what when?" and "who changed the talking points and why?" and "when Obama said this was an act of terror, was that the same as saying it was a terrorist attack, and why didn't he name specific terrorist organizations?" None of these strike me as being legitimate issues at all. Obviously the government may not want to lay everything out in a public forum when an investigation and possible counterstrike is still ongoing! In fact it would have been irresponsible for the administration to give out this information at that time... and even if they misjudged the sensitivity of the situation slightly that hardly merits an investigation.

 

 

Adam lays out the basic issues and his response in the last sentence; "hardly merits an investigation"

[hrothgar]

I think this is a pretty transparent political ploy to make Barack Obama and/or Hillary Clinton look bad.

 

The thing is, there are legitimate questions that could be asked about why a consulate in a pretty dangerous part of the world wasn't better protected, and perhaps about how US intelligence didn't anticipate this event. However, as far as I can tell these legitimate questions are not the focus of the investigation. Instead, the investigation focuses on why UN Ambassador Susan Rice didn't immediately announce on TV that it was a terrorist attack and start laying blame. The other questions seem to be "who knew what when?" and "who changed the talking points and why?" and "when Obama said this was an act of terror, was that the same as saying it was a terrorist attack, and why didn't he name specific terrorist organizations?" None of these strike me as being legitimate issues at all. Obviously the government may not want to lay everything out in a public forum when an investigation and possible counterstrike is still ongoing! In fact it would have been irresponsible for the administration to give out this information at that time... and even if they misjudged the sensitivity of the situation slightly that hardly merits an investigation.

 

I largely agree with Adam's post.

 

One point that I would add: If you're really concerned about improving things, you probably should be looking at the security at embassies and consulates that haven't been attacked rather than obsessively focused on the incident at Benghazi.

[barmar]

A few days ago TDS pointed out that there were 38 embassy attacks during the Bush administration, with hardly any hearings like this in response. The difference in reaction seems like it must be due to political posturing. Bill O'Reilly tried to justify the difference by saying that many of the attacks were in war zones, and they shouldn't count; but in fact that was only 8 of them.

[Flem72]

Time and time again we see that people make mistakes. Quite human to do so. And then they try to cover up their mistake. Which is almost always another mistake.

 

Couldn't agree more.

 

Probably we will find no villains. Probably we will find some really bad judgment.

 

You've been around long enough clearly to remember Watergate. Was that just bad judgment? or something more? how do you distinguish that lapse from this re: (a) seriousness of underlying blunder, (b) attempt to make it seem to be something it wasn't and © motivation of that attempt on a scale from intentional, immoral, purely political action to 'man oh man, we just couldn't figure out what the heck was going on'? (And if you can, please email Jay Carney asap. He is in need of some insight.)

[kenberg]

It's politics? Really? Does a bear eat berries in the woods? Or whatever the expression is. This is Washington. Someone looks good here? Or even looks like an innocent victim? Who? Other than those who died, that is. There are reasons why both political parties get scant attention for honesty and courage.

 

 

I lead a simple life. I know my life is easy. I make mistakes, I acknowledge my mistakes, I don't spin it. This works for me. In politicas such an approach is considered naive. A pity.

[billw55]

A few days ago TDS pointed out that there were 38 embassy attacks during the Bush administration, with hardly any hearings like this in response. The difference in reaction seems like it must be due to political posturing. Bill O'Reilly tried to justify the difference by saying that many of the attacks were in war zones, and they shouldn't count; but in fact that was only 8 of them.

And how many resulted in multiple deaths of American diplomatic workers or security personnel?

[billw55]

The real questions, to my mind, are "why was nothing done about the ambassador's requests for increased security during the weeks prior to the attack?" and "why was no aid forthcoming during the attack?"

 

Those were both answered long ago.

I often don't follow the news closely. Can you present those answers?

[hrothgar]

And how many resulted in multiple deaths of American diplomatic workers or security personnel?

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/13-benghazis-that-occurre_b_3246847.html

 

January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.

 

June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al Qaeda attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.

 

October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of "Bali Bombings." No fatalities.

 

February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.

 

May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al Qaeda terrorists storm the diplomatic compound, killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.

 

July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.

 

December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.

 

March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name "David Foy." This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what's considered American soil.)

 

September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting "Allahu akbar" storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.

 

January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.

 

March 18, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaeda-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.

 

July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.

 

September 17, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.

[Flem72]

It's politics? Really? Does a bear eat berries in the woods? Or whatever the expression is. This is Washington. Someone looks good here? Or even looks like an innocent victim? Who? Other than those who died, that is. There are reasons why both political parties get scant attention for honesty and courage.

 

 

I lead a simple life. I know my life is easy. I make mistakes, I acknowledge my mistakes, I don't spin it. This works for me. In politicas such an approach is considered naive. A pity.

 

So, just politics. I take it you don't care to attempt to place this in the continuum of situations from just politics to something more? Anything from 'geez, we can't let Libya look bad, it's our baby' to high crimes and misdemeanors?

 

I'm not saying I know, I'm just curious that there is so little interest, in the general public, in answering the question: If this is a conscious effort to (shall we say) distort the facts for political ends, and if that effort motivated or delayed beyond effectiveness the decision to forego deployment of available support forces, how do we characterize those actions?

[GreenMan]

I often don't follow the news closely. Can you present those answers?

 

The Benghazi "consulate" was actually a CIA operation with some State Department cover. The State Department's report on its own response is here (PDF). I'm not sure what the CIA has said publicly about its role, but you didn't ask about that so I don't feel obligated. :P

 

As for the military, SecDef Leon Panetta testified:

 

We quickly responded, as [JCS Chairman] General Dempsey said, in terms of deploying forces to the region. We had FAST platoons in the region. We had ships that we had deployed off of Libya. And we were prepared to respond to any contingency and certainly had forces in place to do that. But the basic principle here… is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on; without having some real-time information about what's taking place. And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, [Africa Command] General [Carter F.] Ham, General Dempsey, and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.

 

The 'winger yellers and shouters have had to keep changing their story about what did or didn't happen because they keep being wrong.

[billw55]

horthgar, GreenMan, thanks for the info.

 

Indeed, it seems the only motivation for these hearings is to make political hay.

[blackshoe]

A few days ago TDS pointed out that there were 38 embassy attacks during the Bush administration, with hardly any hearings like this in response. The difference in reaction seems like it must be due to political posturing. Bill O'Reilly tried to justify the difference by saying that many of the attacks were in war zones, and they shouldn't count; but in fact that was only 8 of them.

How many of our ambassadors were killed?

[PassedOut]

horthgar, GreenMan, thanks for the info.

 

Indeed, it seems the only motivation for these hearings is to make political hay.

Still, even though embassy security has been much better under Obama than it was under Bush, there is clearly more to be done. I wish the hearings would focus on that rather than on nonsense about the difference between an "act of terror" and a "terrorist attack." But I'm not a politician...

[blackshoe]

The Benghazi "consulate" was actually a CIA operation with some State Department cover. The State Department's report on its own response is here (PDF). I'm not sure what the CIA has said publicly about its role, but you didn't ask about that so I don't feel obligated. :P

 

As for the military, SecDef Leon Panetta testified:

If it was not really a consulate, what was the ambassador doing there?

 

I note that Mr. Panetta did not identify "the commander on the ground", and it is not clear to me who or where he was. I would have asked the Secretary what information they had when they made the decision not to go in, what additional information they would have required to decide to go in, whether the decision was unanimous, and if it was not unanimous what was the basis of the dissent?

 

I think the implication of Mr. Panetta's testimony is that if they sent in too little force, that would have been a bad thing. I agree. I hope that they didn't think sending in overwhelming force would have been a bad thing.

[hrothgar]

How many of our ambassadors were killed?

 

Isn't enough that people died?

Does it really matter who it was, or what title they had?

[hrothgar]

I think the implication of Mr. Panetta's testimony is that if they sent in too little force, that would have been a bad thing. I agree. I hope that they didn't think sending in overwhelming force would have been a bad thing.

 

"Overwhelming" force wasn't available.

As I understand matters, there was a total of four additional special forces in Tripoli available in the whole country.

 

As long as we're waving magic wands, why not wish that the entire incident didn't happen.

[Flem72]

http://www.huffingto..._b_3246847.html

 

Wonderful. Aren't you even a little embarrassed to post this as some sort of reasonable element in the discourse?

 

The Cesca piece is exactly what I'd expect from HuffPo lefties, misdirection and almost relevant "facts." It's a pile of crap, and it has nothing to do with any fact-finding attempt by Graham or Fox News or anyone else. This is a guy with a "put anything out there to protect Hilary/BHO with any kind of emotional bullshit you can come up with" agenda. "??????"s and "!!!!!!"s galore.

 

Is anyone claiming American installations aren't routine targets for these groups? No. Is this guy claiming Fox didn't report these events? No. Is he claiming that these events should have excited inquiry? Apparently, yes. If he's at all honest, he believes and wants his readership to believe that these attacks are of the same nature as the Benghazi attack. In fact, except for the people who were killed at Karachi, all of the dead were innocents or staff in the wrong place at the wrong time or security personel defending the installations; in fact, except for Yemen and Jeddah, the attacks were either bombs -- got time to respond to that, American pigs? -- or a few armed people who were killed by security personnel; in fact, all of these attacks were over in fairly short order. The result in all of these attacks was that security measures in place worked to the extent they could work to repel the attacks and kill the attackers.

 

Judge for yourselves:

 

http://en.wikipedia....nsulate_attacks

 

http://en.wikipedia....m_in_Uzbekistan

 

http://www.guardian....saudiarabia.usa

 

http://www.washingto...6091200345.html

 

http://en.wikipedia....Istanbul_attack

 

http://en.wikipedia....mbassy_in_Yemen

[Flem72]

If it was not really a consulate, what was the ambassador doing there?

 

I was made aware early on that CIA was involved in tracking arms delivery routes in North Africa and was operating out of this installation. Ambassador Stevens was working the operation as State liaison.

[hrothgar]

Wonderful. Aren't you even a little embarrassed to post this as some sort of reasonable element in the discourse?

 

 

Sorry, I forgot...

 

When brown and black people die, it doesn't count as anything wrong.

I'll try to do better next time and remember just what I'm dealing with...

[GreenMan]

I think the implication of Mr. Panetta's testimony is that if they sent in too little force, that would have been a bad thing. I agree. I hope that they didn't think sending in overwhelming force would have been a bad thing.

 

You seem to be implying that the military could easily have helped and chose not to. What is your evidence for this?