The Benghazi Story goes critical

Page 25 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
If I get the gist of the news correct, it wasn't a "stand down" order because resources in the area were never meant to protect the Ambassador?
Great... now who decided there shouldn't be any forces to use for security or rapid response in a war torn African nation?

If those responsible for this security planning have been outed, then please reply with that info and I'll include it with the OP. Far as I know, the State Department has not disclosed that information.
Pretty much. It's a matter of semantics really - they were ordered not to go to Benghazi, but the military is claiming it was not a stand-down order because they were instead tasked with something else. Seems reasonable to me.

Your other point is to me the real meat here. Someone fucked up, badly, hanging an American ambassador out in one of the most dangerous environments with wholly inadequate security. Doesn't necessarily make it a scandal though; sometimes people fuck up. With the habitual secrecy and turf wars between the military, CIA, and State, it's entirely possible that whoever made that determination honestly thought the ambassador was protected. It's also possible that the rumors are true and the ambassador was intentionally left unprotected because he was a participant in CIA weapons running. Either way, seems to me that the lies were entirely after the fact and politically driven. I don't like it, but D.C. lying for political benefit hardly amounts to a scandal. The only thing that to me rises to the level of a scandal (albeit a minor one) are the claims that the ambassador was secretly offered and turned down what he officially requested and was denied.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
It's also possible that the rumors are true and the ambassador was intentionally left unprotected because he was a participant in CIA weapons running.

Just one of the ever shifting weak as drizzling shit rationales behind the conspiracy theory, one guaranteed to ring the rubes' bells, every time.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
It's starting to make me snore rather than go critical at this point.

It's not aimed at you. It's intended to keep the Faithful in a nice emotional froth, keep them receptive & engaged in tail chasing.

God only knows what might happen if they started thinking for themselves
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
34,004
8,039
136
It's starting to make me snore rather than go critical at this point.

"The Benghazi Story goes critical" reflects the original topic prior to it getting bumped. I had assumed smuggling arms to Syrian terrorists through Benghazi would cause a significant shift in both our media and our government.

The illegality of working to overthrow Assad and hand Syria over to the likes of ISIS should have stuck a chord with the American people. Apparently it did not. Either the public does not generally know we built Syrian terrorists, the same sort that are destroying Iraq, or the people approve of us creating the next Bin Laden.

If we don't want to create terrorists, then the arms smuggling really should have been a bigger deal, an impeachable offense. Problem is there are Republicans like McCain who loved the idea. So the story passes through the media with nary a peep. People aren't whipped into revolt against it and they soon fall back asleep. Ignorance is bliss.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,548
15,424
136
Did I miss the illegal arms smuggling? Where exactly was that detail? What report was it in?
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Did I miss the illegal arms smuggling? Where exactly was that detail? What report was it in?

Why, it's all from "sources". Really, really reliable sources, like, you know, "sources".

http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/0...ratives-on-the-ground-during-benghazi-attack/

Kinda like the sources who told us that Spetsnaz troops smuggled Iraq's WMD's to the Bekaa valley.

Linking it to the death of the ambassador just adds another layer of motivated reasoning & confirmation bias for deranged conspiracy theorists who are just so sure that it was all some kind of evil Kenyan plot.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,548
15,424
136
From the OP.

Lol! Did you read any of those links? The only facts presented was that there were dozens of CIA operatives in the annex building. What they were doing is pure speculation backed up by zero facts or even eye witness accounts.

I guess we will never know but that's what happens when you cry wolf too many times.
 

emperus

Diamond Member
Apr 6, 2012
7,818
1,572
136
At least this post is memorialized. Easy to read it from the beginning and see how the right wing smear machine works and ultimately what always happens to it. Just like numerous posts in this forum (remember the Bundy thread).
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
34,004
8,039
136
Lol! Did you read any of those links? The only facts presented was that there were dozens of CIA operatives in the annex building. What they were doing is pure speculation backed up by zero facts or even eye witness accounts.

I guess we will never know but that's what happens when you cry wolf too many times.

Also from the first page of this topic:
Shipload of Looted Missiles From Libya Arrives in Turkey

US officials basically admit Stevens was there for the weapons, but the US story is that we were there to "destroy" them". Funny how "destroy" resulted in massive arms shipments to the next country on our hit-parade.

Their story might be plausible, if Obama didn't step up and openly arm the Syrian terrorists months later.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,548
15,424
136
Also from the first page of this topic:
Shipload of Looted Missiles From Libya Arrives in Turkey

US officials basically admit Stevens was there for the weapons, but the US story is that we were there to "destroy" them". Funny how "destroy" resulted in massive arms shipments to the next country on our hit-parade.

Their story might be plausible, if Obama didn't step up and openly arm the Syrian terrorists months later.

Hmm...who to believe, who to believe? Your twisted story or the story of a guy who died helping others?

In an interview with ABC News last month, Glen Doherty, a 42-year-old former Navy SEAL who worked as a contractor with the State Department, said he personally went into the field to track down so-called MANPADS, shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles, and destroy them.

Again you posted nothing factual that backs up your claim, nothing!

Now go ahead and come up with another conspiracy theory to explain your last conspiracy theory, I need a good laugh.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
34,004
8,039
136
I'll make this simple for you.

  1. The Obama admin is openly and actively arming terrorists in Syria.
  2. Last summer, the Obama admin called in the "red line" and tried marching us to war.
  3. Benghazi is a well established hub for weapons smuggling into Syria.
  4. Ambassador Stevens and the CIA were in Benghazi to "deal" with the weapons.

Now which is more likely...
A: That we were covertly arming Syrian terrorists in 2012, who we later openly armed... or...
B: That we were destroying the weapons that we are now sending to terrorists?
 
Feb 4, 2009
35,245
16,716
136
Pretty much. It's a matter of semantics really - they were ordered not to go to Benghazi, but the military is claiming it was not a stand-down order because they were instead tasked with something else. Seems reasonable to me.

Your other point is to me the real meat here. Someone fucked up, badly, hanging an American ambassador out in one of the most dangerous environments with wholly inadequate security. Doesn't necessarily make it a scandal though; sometimes people fuck up. With the habitual secrecy and turf wars between the military, CIA, and State, it's entirely possible that whoever made that determination honestly thought the ambassador was protected. It's also possible that the rumors are true and the ambassador was intentionally left unprotected because he was a participant in CIA weapons running. Either way, seems to me that the lies were entirely after the fact and politically driven. I don't like it, but D.C. lying for political benefit hardly amounts to a scandal. The only thing that to me rises to the level of a scandal (albeit a minor one) are the claims that the ambassador was secretly offered and turned down what he officially requested and was denied.

From what I understand is the Ambassador specifically wanted the Embassy there and specifically wanted mostly local security. I also believe there was a plan to secure this embassy more but congress denied the spending. I feel Hillary should have made more noise about the security budget.
Its a shame we live in such partisan times, I feel we are missing an opportunity to understand what went wrong. I also believe no single person is guilty, I believe its a process failure and multiple parties made small mistakes.
Too bad the special prosecutor was completely abused with Whitewater. Assuming it didn't become an investigation from Benghazi to did the President lie about having fruit loops for breakfast on a particular day.
 
Last edited:

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
From what I understand is the Ambassador specifically wanted the Embassy there and specifically wanted mostly local security. I also believe there was a plan to secure this embassy more but congress denied the spending. I feel Hillary should have made more noise about the security budget.
Its a shame we live in such partisan times, I feel we are missing an opportunity to understand what went wrong. I also believe no single person is guilty, I believe its a process failure and multiple parties made small mistakes.
Too bad the special prosecutor was completely abused with Whitewater. Assuming it didn't become an investigation from Benghazi to did the President lie about having fruit loops for breakfast on a particular day.

I think that Repubs don't give a damn about what actually happened, what they want is mud & they're willing to invoke absurd conspiracy theory to mix it up.

I also think that hindsight is always 20/20 & that we're not omnipotent nor omniscient. There are forces beyond our control, always will be. The very nature of it is that diplomatic corps personnel risk their lives every day.
 

Zorkorist

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2007
6,861
3
76
My understanding is that there were repeated calls from the ambassador for help.

These were ignored by Obama and Hillary.

-John
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
34,004
8,039
136
I think that Repubs don't give a damn about what actually happened, what they want is mud & they're willing to invoke absurd conspiracy theory to mix it up.

A: We were destroying weapons destined for Syria.
B: We were the ones smuggling weapons to Syria.

Only one of those choices is consistent with how this administration dealt with Syria in the months following Benghazi. It's no absurd conspiracy theory to invoke standard criminal policy. The United States is currently in the business of creating and arming terrorists in the Middle East. Go figure.

Would you really feign ignorance now that it's your President involved?
 

Thebobo

Lifer
Jun 19, 2006
18,574
7,671
136
I was doing some work in the main IRS building in DC years ago. The elevators were ancient with regular phones with numbers you can call out on, anyway the cab was full and the phone rang. I picked it answering it by saying "IRS elevator cab # 14 may I help you" it was someone overseas wanting urgent help on their taxes.

/thread off
 

Pens1566

Lifer
Oct 11, 2005
12,281
9,110
136
Shouldn't the title of this thread be changed? "sputters like a wet fart" is more in line with reality than "goes critical".
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
"The Benghazi Story goes critical" reflects the original topic prior to it getting bumped. I had assumed smuggling arms to Syrian terrorists through Benghazi would cause a significant shift in both our media and our government.

The illegality of working to overthrow Assad and hand Syria over to the likes of ISIS should have stuck a chord with the American people. Apparently it did not. Either the public does not generally know we built Syrian terrorists, the same sort that are destroying Iraq, or the people approve of us creating the next Bin Laden.

If we don't want to create terrorists, then the arms smuggling really should have been a bigger deal, an impeachable offense. Problem is there are Republicans like McCain who loved the idea. So the story passes through the media with nary a peep. People aren't whipped into revolt against it and they soon fall back asleep. Ignorance is bliss.
You touched on one of the reasons - the recognition that the Republicans would have done much the same. We always try to shape events to our benefit, and it's often a dog's breakfast because often there is no good side and sometimes not even a less bad side. That said, should we really get all up in arms and throw out the bums in favor of the other bums? Seems to me that in a two-party system, the only reason to get really up in arms is when the party in power is doing something the party out of power would not do. If for instance we successfully removed Obama and Biden and crowned President Boehner, would we be sending a powerful message that such behavior is unacceptable, or just legitimizing it for Boehner? (I mean after he stopped crying, obviously. I doubt anyone could understand him the first couple of days.)

From what I understand is the Ambassador specifically wanted the Embassy there and specifically wanted mostly local security. I also believe there was a plan to secure this embassy more but congress denied the spending. I feel Hillary should have made more noise about the security budget.
Its a shame we live in such partisan times, I feel we are missing an opportunity to understand what went wrong. I also believe no single person is guilty, I believe its a process failure and multiple parties made small mistakes.
Too bad the special prosecutor was completely abused with Whitewater. Assuming it didn't become an investigation from Benghazi to did the President lie about having fruit loops for breakfast on a particular day.
Man, I hope you got paid for that post since you hit pretty much every Democrat taking point. Pelosi could not have done better.
1. Blame the dead guy.
2. Blame Republicans cutting funding. (Or not increasing funding as much as asked.)
3. Blame partisanship.
4. Assert that we'll never know what happened.
5. Blame Republicans again.

I think it's virtually a certainty that multiple people made mistakes. Very few spectacular failures occur from a single person's single mistake, and especially given the habitual secrecy and turf wars it's surprising that more such mistakes don't happen. Ideally the minimum acceptable for an ambassador would be a reinforced Marine squad with an available QRF and a reaction force, all with attached transportation, and a plan to reinforce with the QRF within an hour and the larger reaction force with twenty-four hours. This is simply sound military planning. But there are always other concerns and competing needs, and I suspect someone up the chain scrimped on security thinking that the CIA station nearby could and would provide a QRF. If memory serves, the CIA station until soon before the attack was larger; unfortunately State is not in the CIA's chain of command, so a reduction or relocation in CIA personnel does not necessarily show up on State's radar. I think it's also likely that there's an element of a calculated risk here as well. And possibly there are concerns they thought valid, such as gun running, that need to be kept secret. Whichever, I think it's likely that Benghazi is not a major scandal.

It's sad that a President lying for political benefit about the murder of a US Ambassador seems to me no more than a minor scandal, but that far predates Obama. Romney (who was my guy) was using the attack for political advantage as well, and I fully believe that President McCain would have also spun the most advantageous story he thought he could get away with.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
My understanding is that there were repeated calls from the ambassador for help.

These were ignored by Obama and Hillary.

-John
There were repeated calls to Tripoli which were ignored because they did not recognize the number. After Tripoli (the actual embassy) finally answered the phone, the call for help was passed up the chain of command. At that point it wasn't really ignored, but we had severely dropped the ball. There was very little available, no transportation for what was available, and legitimate concerns that what little was available might be needed at the embassy.

In principle I believe in always responding to a call for help. However, as a practical matter sometimes you get caught with your pants down and are stuck with too little, too late. In that case, sending a too-small force may be worse than nothing as it merely increases the number of Americans who may be overrun and/or may themselves need rescuing.

This was not the first time we've been so caught, although it was the first time involving an American Ambassador. It will not be the last time either, although hopefully it will be the last time involving an American Ambassador. This is simply a basic tenant of war: He who would guard everything, guards nothing.
 

alcoholbob

Diamond Member
May 24, 2005
6,308
355
126
I dont get the calls to impeach Obama over letting the ambassador die, even if he ordered an intentional stand-down. Presidents let people or soldiers die all the time for political reasons and its never been an impeachable offense. The USS Liberty incident is probably the most egregious and public example where Lyndon Johnson ordered a stand-down by US Navy carrier battle groups and said he'd rather watch the ship sink than embarrass the Israelis. There was little buzz about it then and Benghazi is hardly a scandal now. Kings never did nor ever will care about their pawns.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |