Serious Deriliction of Duty By Obama

[Kathianne]

This seems to be criminal:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/cia-operators-were-denied-request-for-help-during-benghazi-attack-sources-say/


EXCLUSIVE: CIA operators were denied request for help during Benghazi attack, sources say By Jennifer Griffin (http://www.foxnews.com/archive/author/jennifer-griffin/index.html)
Published October 26, 2012


Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later on the annex itself was denied by the CIA chain of command -- who also told the CIA operators twice to "stand down" rather than help the ambassador's team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.


Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was part of a small team who was at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When he and others heard the shots fired, they informed their higher-ups at the annex to tell them what they were hearing and requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to "stand down," according to sources familiar with the exchange. Soon after, they were again told to "stand down." 3 times, even though we now know the WH situation room and State Department were watching in 'real time.'


Woods and at least two others ignored those orders and made their way to the consulate which at that point was on fire. Shots were exchanged. The rescue team from the CIA annex evacuated those who remained at the consulate and Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack. They could not find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight.


At that point, they called again for military support and help because they were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied. There were no communications problems at the annex, according those present at the compound. The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Spectre gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights. The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours -- enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just 480 miles away, to arrive. Fox News has also learned that two separate Tier One Special operations forces were told to wait, among them Delta Force operators.



A Special Operations team, or CIF which stands for Commanders in Extremis Force, operating in Central Europe had been moved to Sigonella, Italy, but they were never told to deploy. In fact, a Pentagon official says there were never any requests to deploy assets from outside the country. A second force that specializes in counterterrorism rescues was on hand at Sigonella, according to senior military and intelligence sources. According to those sources, they could have flown to Benghazi in less than two hours. They were the same distance to Benghazi as those that were sent from Tripoli. Spectre gunships are commonly used by the Special Operations community to provide close air support.


According to sources on the ground during the attack, the special operator on the roof of the CIA annex had visual contact and a laser pointing at the Libyan mortar team that was targeting the CIA annex. The operators were calling in coordinates of where the Libyan forces were firing from.


Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told reporters at the Pentagon on Thursday (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/panetta-military-lacked-enough-information-to-intervene-during-benghazi-attack/) that there was not a clear enough picture of what was occurring on the ground in Benghazi to send help.


"There's a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking going on here," Panetta said Thursday. "But the basic principle here ... is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on."


U.S. officials argue that there was a period of several hours when the fighting stopped before the mortars were fired at the annex, leading officials to believe the attack was over.


Fox News has learned that there were two military surveillance drones redirected to Benghazi shortly after the attack on the consulate began. They were already in the vicinity. The second surveillance craft was sent to relieve the first drone, perhaps due to fuel issues. Both were capable of sending real time visuals back to U.S. officials in Washington, D.C. Any U.S. official or agency with the proper clearance, including the White House Situation Room, State Department, CIA, Pentagon and others, could call up that video in real time on their computers.


Tyrone Woods was later joined at the scene by fellow former Navy SEAL Glen Doherty, who was sent in from Tripoli as part of a Global Response Staff or GRS that provides security to CIA case officers and provides countersurveillance and surveillance protection. They were killed by a mortar shell at 4 a.m. Libyan time, nearly seven hours after the attack on the consulate began -- a window that represented more than enough time for the U.S. military to send back-up from nearby bases in Europe, according to sources familiar with Special Operations. Four mortars were fired at the annex. The first one struck outside the annex. Three more hit the annex.


A motorcade of dozens of Libyan vehicles, some mounted with 50 caliber machine guns, belonging to the February 17th Brigades, a Libyan militia which is friendly to the U.S., finally showed up at the CIA annex at approximately 3 a.m. An American Quick Reaction Force sent from Tripoli had arrived at the Benghazi airport at 2 a.m. (four hours after the initial attack on the consulate) and was delayed for 45 minutes at the airport because they could not at first get transportation, allegedly due to confusion among Libyan militias who were supposed to escort them to the annex, according to Benghazi sources.


The American special operators, Woods, Doherty and at least two others were part of the Global Response Staff, a CIA element, based at the CIA annex and were protecting CIA operators who were part of a mission to track and repurchase arms in Benghazi that had proliferated in the wake of Muammar Qaddafi's fall. Part of their mission was to find the more than 20,000 missing MANPADS, or shoulder-held missiles capable of bringing down a commercial aircraft. According to a source on the ground at the time of the attack, the team inside the CIA annex had captured three Libyan attackers and was forced to hand them over to the Libyans. U.S. officials do not know what happened to those three attackers and whether they were released by the Libyan forces.

Fox News has also learned that Stevens was in Benghazi that day to be present at the opening of an English-language school being started by the Libyan farmer who helped save an American pilot who had been shot down by pro-Qaddafi forces during the initial war to overthrow the regime. That farmer saved the life of the American pilot and the ambassador wanted to be present to launch the Libyan rescuer's new school.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/cia-operators-were-denied-request-for-help-during-benghazi-attack-sources-say/#ixzz2AQy0RaZL

[Kathianne]

Interesting:

http://nation.foxnews.com/hillary-clinton/2012/10/26/report-hillary-asked-more-security-benghazi-obama-said-no


Clinton asked for more security in Benghazi, Obama said no
BY CHRISTOPHER COLLINS

Last night, it was revealed that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had ordered more security at the U.S. mission in Benghazi before it was attacked where four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens were murdered by Al-Qaeda but President Obama denied the request.

The news broke on TheBlazeTV’s “Wilkow!” hosted by Andrew Wilkow, by best-selling author, Ed Klein who said the legal counsel to Clinton had informed him of this information.

Klein also said that those same sources said that former President Bill Clinton has been “urging” his wife [Hillary] to release official State Department documents that prove she called for additional security at the compound in Libya, which would almost certainly result in President Obama losing the election.



Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/hillary-clinton/2012/10/26/report-hillary-asked-more-security-benghazi-obama-said-no#ixzz2AR24TfKP

[jimnyc]

This really needs to reach more airtime and the most media possible. Arguing over your everyday politics is one thing, but if Obama played a part in denying security to American personnel abroad, IMO, he is clearly unfit for the presidency, and the voters need to know the truth.

[aboutime]

We are going to see SO MUCH "CYA" with the White House now. Looks like Hillary is working harder to CYA her butt by preempting Obama and his LAME Lying Squad.

Anyone heard from the Father of one of those who died in Benghazi?

He didn't hold anything back. And there is NO QUESTION. OBAMA LIED...and FOUR PEOPLE DIED!

The Blood really is...ON OBAMA'S HANDS....

Now Obama is learning the True meaning of 'THE BUCK STOPS HERE!'

[aboutime]

This really needs to reach more airtime and the most media possible. Arguing over your everyday politics is one thing, but if Obama played a part in denying security to American personnel abroad, IMO, he is clearly unfit for the presidency, and the voters need to know the truth.


This Major Screw UP by Obama now takes all the WIND out of the BRAGGING RIGHTS he thought he had by reminding everyone about how HE KILLED OBL.

Any American who refuses to recognize what took place....in Obama's decision NOT to send help as anything but POLITICAL. Deserves whatever INCREASED OBAMA TAXES they can't afford.

Obama should seriously consider RESIGNATION BEFORE November 6th. Let Joe LOSE to Romney. And we can all prepare for the U-HAUL to go to KANSAS, rather than CHICAGO.

LEVENWORTH KANSAS, is where the FEDERAL PRISON is located, and the future home of both Obama, and Holder.

[Kathianne]

Has anyone else noticed this story creeping into the MSM?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/what-was-obama-told-at-the-september-10-2012-nsc-meeting-on-911-threats/2012/10/31/4fda1f04-2379-11e2-8448-81b1ce7d6978_blog.html


Posted at 12:54 PM ET, 10/31/2012 <!-- For AP News Registry --> <abbr class="updated" title="2012-10-31T16:54:46-0400">Oct 31, 2012 04:54 PM EDT</abbr>
TheWashingtonPost <!-- /For AP News Registry --> What was Obama told at the September 10, 2012, NSC meeting on ‘9/11 threats’? By Marc A. Thiessen (http://www.washingtonpost.com/marc-a-thiessen/2011/02/24/ABwzFYN_page.html)

On the White House Web site, the president’s calendar for September 10, 2012 — the day before the Benghazi, Libya, attack — is blank and and the daily press guidance says “The President has no public events scheduled.” But the president did have an important meeting that day. In an e-mail exchange over President Obama’s record of skipping his daily intelligence meetings (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-is-obama-skipping-more-than-half-of-his-daily-intelligence-meetings/2012/09/10/6624afe8-fb49-11e1-b153-218509a954e1_story.html), National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor wrote me the following:

I’d also note that this focus on just the PDB and not the countless other NSC meetings the President has each week really misses the point. For example, the President had a briefing with the Principals Committee to review 9/11 threats and mitigation efforts on September 10th. Seems like a relevant data point for you[r] piece. [Emphasis added]. The fact that “the President had a briefing with the Principals Committee to review 9/11 threats and mitigation efforts on September 10th” raises a whole host of new questions:

● What was the president told in that briefing about “9/11 threats and mitigation efforts” in Libya?


● The New York Times reports (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/30/world/middleeast/no-specific-warnings-in-benghazi-attack.html?pagewanted=all) that “In the months leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, the Obama administration received intelligence reports that Islamic extremist groups were operating training camps in the mountains near the Libyan city and that some of the fighters were ‘Al Qaeda-leaning.’ ” Was the president briefed on those reports at the NSC principals meeting?


● The Times further reports that “a week before Mr. Stevens died, the American Embassy warned that Libyan officials had declared a ‘state of maximum alert’ in Benghazi.” Was the president told of this assessment by Libyan officials of the state of security in Benghazi at the 9/10 meeting?


● U.S. diplomats in Libya made numerous requests for additional security. The president claims he was not “personally aware (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/obama-not-personally-aware-security-requests-before-libya-attack/#ixzz2AtSTidD6)” of those requests.Well, was there any discussion of those requests in the NSC principals committee meeting on September 10th?


If the NSC Principals Committee did not discuss Libya as part of their briefing on “9/11 threats and mitigation efforts,” then it would seem to be an example of gross negligence. If they did discuss Libya, then Americans deserve to know what they told the president about the security situation in that country one day before our ambassador was killed. And if the president was in fact briefed on the growing al-Qaeda threat in Benghazi a day before the attack, it would further call into question the administration’s efforts to blame the attack on a YouTube video.


The only way to answer these questions is for the administration to release the records relating to the September 10 NSC meeting — including any briefing slides or papers prepared for the meeting. Those records will tell us a great deal about what the president knew — and when he knew it.

[Nukeman]

Has anyone else noticed this story creeping into the MSM?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/what-was-obama-told-at-the-september-10-2012-nsc-meeting-on-911-threats/2012/10/31/4fda1f04-2379-11e2-8448-81b1ce7d6978_blog.html
Jay Leno even got in on this .. Thank God for a few out there that can get this information out to more people!!

[Robert A Whit]

I have to check my g mail to see if others are talking of the way Obama handled the events of 911 and the killing of the ambassador.

It is not too late for the MSM to get this news out.

But will they?

[Kathianne]

I have to check my g mail to see if others are talking of the way Obama handled the events of 911 and the killing of the ambassador.

It is not too late for the MSM to get this news out.

But will they?

My guess is they are dragging their feet until next Wednesday. If Obama is re-elected, it'll be covered. If it's as bad as it looks, impeachment looms, with Biden as VP. If Romney wins, they'll have investigations, but no hoopla. Think Ford pardoning Nixon. It cost Ford the election, but saved the country lots of angst.

[aboutime]

I have to check my g mail to see if others are talking of the way Obama handled the events of 911 and the killing of the ambassador.

It is not too late for the MSM to get this news out.

But will they?


NO WAY! The Obama MSM is so attached to Obama after four years. They wouldn't dare try to tell the truth about Benghaszi now. Not this close to the election.
What makes matters worse is. If...Obama happens to win. We won't hear another word about it.

If he loses. There won't be time to learn the truth as he seeks ASYLUM in LIBYA, as the New Leader of the Muslim Brotherhood!

[jafar00]

Well this would explain somewhat why the Obama regime had a little difficulty in dealing with the attack.

It seems the "embassy" was little more than a front for a massive secret CIA operation and served very little diplomatic purpose in Benghazi. The would give idea that the attack was a well organised operation for reasons other than rioting over a film much more credence.

It would appear that the CIA simply pissed off the wrong people.


WASHINGTON -- The pivotal role of the Central Intelligence Agency in the deadly attack in Benghazi, Libya, last month burst into the public spotlight late on Thursday, after a series of news reports added another layer of complication to a controversy that has loomed over the final days of the presidential election.
Several (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/world/africa/cia-played-major-defensive-role-in-libya-attack.html?ref=world&pagewanted=all) of the articles (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/02/us-usa-libya-cia-idUSBRE8A102T20121102) -- the product (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cia-rushed-to-save-diplomats-as-libya-attack-was-underway/2012/11/01/c93a4f96-246d-11e2-ac85-e669876c6a24_story.html) of a background briefing (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h5dFLv_VbErb9yVHME7LKUiCvEfA?docId=edeb55141 2dd4de68875d3ae5c950591) by American intelligence officials, the first official acknowledgement of the extent of the CIA's role -- laid out a detailed timeline of the CIA's actions on the ground during the attack.
The attack on Sept. 11 against the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi by an armed Islamic militant group ultimately left four Americans dead, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens. CIA operatives were at the compound within 25 minutes of the assault, and played a major role in helping fight off the attack over the next several hours, the intelligence officials told reporters. Two operatives would later die in the fighting that night.
The fact that the CIA had a facility at the compound in Benghazi had been an open secret for weeks, although its central role was not fully acknowledged.
A Fox News report (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/cia-operators-were-denied-request-for-help-during-benghazi-attack-sources-say/) last Friday had alleged that several operators at an agency annex had been denied help from their CIA higher-ups during the fighting, something the CIA denies, and there had even been indelicate hints of secret components (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-letting-us-in-on-a-secret/2012/10/10/ba3136ca-132b-11e2-ba83-a7a396e6b2a7_story.html) to the Benghazi compound during an open hearing on Capitol Hill back in mid-October.
A U.S. official familiar with the Benghazi intelligence, who spoke under the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive matters, confirmed to HuffPost that the CIA had an extensive presence in Benghazi, and that the two former Navy SEALs who died in the assault, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, were contractors working for the agency.
According to documents released by the House Oversight Committee (http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/DEI-to-BHO-10-19-2012-attachments.pdf), when the Undersecretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy signed an order last December to maintain a presence in the Benghazi compound for another year, his official memo counted 35 "U.S. government personnel," of whom only eight were State Department. Many of the rest were secretly with the CIA, the official confirmed.
The U.S. official noted that at no point in the October congressional hearing did any of the State Department officials testifying use the word "consulate" to describe the Benghazi compound. This was no accident. In fact, the compound served little routine diplomatic purpose, and was largely under the operational control of the CIA.
Republicans and conservative media outlets, particularly Fox News (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/01/fox-news-benghazi-obama_n_2059933.html), have repeatedly faulted the Obama administration, and in particular the State Department, for its immediate handling of the crisis, and for its incomplete and sometimes inaccurate description of events after the attacks in Benghazi.
Some, like Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), have alternated between publicly urging the release of more information (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/01/fox-news-benghazi-obama_n_2059933.html) and cautioning against the risk of revealing government secrets. During the October congressional hearing, Chaffetz had halted the testimony of a State Department official when she brought up the annex, out of concerns that her remarks might "deal with sources and methods that would be totally inappropriate in an open forum such as this."
"Sources and methods" is widely understood to be a term that refers to intelligence operations.
The involvement of the CIA may help explain, if not quite justify, some of the evident disarray around the administration's handling of the attacks, former agency officials told HuffPost. When secret agencies are involved, and especially when they are as pivotal as they were in Benghazi, public explanations can be treacherous, and officials will go out of their way to avoid exposing the agency's role, especially if the operations could be ongoing.
"The CIA can't admit their role because it compromises the cover of the facility, and that's the most important thing," said Bob Baer, who spent two decades as a field officer in the CIA. "You can never compromise cover."
It's not a perfect explanation. The Obama White House has shown a willingness to part with sensitive information in the past when it suits them, most notably in the aftermath of the Osama bin Laden raid. Before that raid, the very existence of a top unit of Navy SEALS known as Team Six, or the Devgru, had been considered an unmentionable secret.
And the prominent involvement of the CIA in Benghazi raises as many questions as it resolves, including why there was so little intelligence ahead of the attack, and insufficient manpower to protect against it.
But there were other potentially mitigating consequences of the CIA's significant involvement in the facility, the U.S. official told HuffPost. For one thing, according toan in-depth investigation by The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204712904578092853621061838.html?m od=WSJ_hps_LEFTTopStorie) on Thursday, it was partly confusion over who had ultimate responsibility for security at the compound, particularly in an emergency situation like the September attack, that contributed to the disarray during the response.
"State Department officials believed that responsibility was set to be shouldered in part by CIA personnel in the city through a series of secret agreements that even some officials in Washington didn't know about," the Journal wrote.
The Journal's report (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204712904578092853621061838.html?m od=WSJ_hps_LEFTTopStories) placed the blame for many of the missteps in Benghazi specifically on CIA director David Petraeus, who was described as aloof in the weeks after that episode. Petraeus was faulted for failing to attend the funeral of the two former Navy SEALS, both identified as CIA contractors, who died during the attack, and for later attending a screening of the spy-thriller "Argo" amid sensitive internal deliberations.
A senior intelligence official disputed this characterization to the Journal, calling Petraeus "fully engaged from the start."
The U.S. official told HuffPost that a two-day delay in publicly identifying (http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=117862) Woods and Doherty was a consequence of the unique sensitivity of determining whether they would be outed as CIA agents, or if the State Department would claim the two as theirs.
Both Woods and Doherty were ultimately identified vaguely as Embassy "security officers."
And, according to the Journal, part of the reason for an extensive hold-up in securing the main diplomatic compound -- where many papers (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/11/01/troubling_surveillance_before_benghazi_attack?page =full) belonging to Ambassador Stevens were later recovered by reporters -- was because resources had been redirected to secure the CIA annexes.
Paul Pillar, a Georgetown University professor and 28-year CIA veteran, told HuffPost that a bigger problem for making sense of the early hours and days of the attack was "the understandably fragmentary and inconclusive nature of early reporting when anything like this happens."
"That would have been the case regardless of which specific agencies were involved on the ground in Benghazi," he added. But the "direct involvement of an intelligence agency on the ground can be an added matter of delicacy in making public statements about a situation."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/02/benghazi-cia-libya_n_2062131.html

[jimnyc]

Well this would explain somewhat why the Obama regime had a little difficulty in dealing with the attack.

It seems the "embassy" was little more than a front for a massive secret CIA operation and served very little diplomatic purpose in Benghazi. The would give idea that the attack was a well organised operation for reasons other than rioting over a film much more credence.

It would appear that the CIA simply pissed off the wrong people.

It doesn't change the fact that scumbag animals killed people, and that countless security requests were denied. These requests went straight to the state department, of which Hillary Clinton is in charge of, and Obama ultimately responsible for. Diplomatic or not, no one deserves to get killed by terrorists, and they deserved further security from these filth, as requested.

[Kathianne]

Well this would explain somewhat why the Obama regime had a little difficulty in dealing with the attack.

It seems the "embassy" was little more than a front for a massive secret CIA operation and served very little diplomatic purpose in Benghazi. The would give idea that the attack was a well organised operation for reasons other than rioting over a film much more credence.

It would appear that the CIA simply pissed off the wrong people.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/02/benghazi-cia-libya_n_2062131.html

There was nothing in the this link, (posted from your sources lead paragraph): http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h5dFLv_VbErb9yVHME7LKUiCvEfA?docId=edeb55141 2dd4de68875d3ae5c950591

that differs in substance from what was reported earlier. Indeed, this HuffPost is just what the accusations have been, that the media is stretching the story out until after the election.

[jafar00]

It doesn't change the fact that scumbag animals killed people, and that countless security requests were denied. These requests went straight to the state department, of which Hillary Clinton is in charge of, and Obama ultimately responsible for. Diplomatic or not, no one deserves to get killed by terrorists, and they deserved further security from these filth, as requested.

If it was a secret CIA operation, Obama's hands may have been tied. If the embassy was indeed just an embassy, I think the outcome would have been different.

[jimnyc]

If it was a secret CIA operation, Obama's hands may have been tied. If the embassy was indeed just an embassy, I think the outcome would have been different.

Don't think so, it was an ambassador and seal for starters, you defend them no matter what, it was NOT filled with CIA operatives and you ALWAYS defend your embassy no matter what. Unlike Islamic people, we defend ALL of our citizens, or at least we did until Obama made this decision. Besides, "even if", which I doubt, why would a CIA operation have no operatives there? Why would it only be filled with regular embassy personnel? Why would CIA be contacting the state department for security, over and over and over? The CIA would have been more than capable of supplying their own security. This story makes no sense and doesn't add up, but again, "even if", you don't let people die, not even secret operations.

[Gaffer]

It was another gun running operation with the left hand not knowing what the right hand was doing.

[jimnyc]

It was another gun running operation with the left hand not knowing what the right hand was doing.

If that's the case, it wouldn't be the first time they did so and then allowed Americans to die as a result of their incompetence, Obama already has precedent in that field.

[Gaffer]

If that's the case, it wouldn't be the first time they did so and then allowed Americans to die as a result of their incompetence, Obama already has precedent in that field.

Yep he's got lots of experience in that. I do remember reading an article about a warehouse full of guns and some other stuff that disappeared following the attack. Haven't seen any reporters digging into that recently. He's going down in history as the gun smuggling president.

[Kathianne]

I'm getting the feeling some of the MSM are getting nervous of folks noticing they've not been doing their jobs:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-security-breakdown-in-benghazi/2012/11/02/a34b7dd0-250f-11e2-9313-3c7f59038d93_story.html?tid=wp_ipad


The Post’s View
A security breakdown in Benghazi
By Editorial Board (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-posts-view/2011/12/07/gIQAoEIscO_page.html), <!-- For AP News Registry --> <abbr class="updated" title="2012-11-02T23:19:54-0400">Nov 02, 2012 11:19 PM EDT</abbr>
The Washington Post <!-- /For AP News Registry --> Published: November 2
<!-- /byline --> <article> NEWS REPORTING about the Sept. 11 assault on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cia-rushed-to-save-diplomats-as-libya-attack-was-underway/2012/11/01/c93a4f96-246d-11e2-ac85-e669876c6a24_story.html) has moved from the political and mostly pointless issue of when the Obama administration had publicly acknowledged that a terrorist attack had taken place to more essential questions: Why was there a security failure at the consulate, and how did U.S. forces in Libya and outside the country respond to the emergency? The result is a host of unanswered questions.


Following a single background briefing, the State Department has mostly refused to respond to inquiries about Benghazi, citing an ongoing investigation by a review board. But considerable evidence has emerged that Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, who died in the attack, and his security staff were deeply concerned about what they considered to be inadequate security. Fox News reported (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/31/exclusive-us-memo-warned-libya-consulate-couldnt-withstand-coordinated-attack/) this week that a secret cable described an Aug. 15 “emergency meeting” at the consulate, at which the State Department’s regional security officer “expressed concerns with the ability to defend Post in the event of a coordinated attack due to limited manpower, security measures, weapons capabilities, host nation support and the overall size of the compound.”


<article> Fox reported that the cable, dispatched to Washington, said the emergency meeting included a briefing about al-Qaeda training camps in the Benghazi area and Islamist militias, including those that allegedly carried out the Sept. 11 attack. In another cable on Sept. 11, hours before the attack, Mr. Stevens described “growing problems with security” in Benghazi and “growing frustration” with the local militias and police, to which the State Department had entrusted the consulate’s defense. Separately, according to a report (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/11/01/troubling_surveillance_before_benghazi_attack#.UJL H1WX3bQ8.twitter) on ForeignPolicy.com, Mr. Stevens may have dispatched a letter to Benghazi authorities, complaining that a policeman assigned to guard the consulate was photographing it on the morning of Sept. 11.


Fox’s aggressive reporting, though undercut by blustery and often scurrilous commentary, (The Post couldn't miss a dig, ignoring their own silence and attempts to silence coverage for all these weeks.) nevertheless seems to have prompted the CIA and Pentagon to provide reporters with their accounts of Sept. 11 — even as the State Department and the White House insist that all should await the official investigation results. From these, and a report (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204712904578092853621061838.html?m od=%3C%25mst.param%28LINKMODPREFIX%29) Friday by the Wall Street Journal, it emerges that the CIA mission in Benghazi was considerably larger than the consulate and may have been partly responsible for its defense. According to the CIA account, on the night of Sept. 11 a six-member paramilitary force set out to rescue consulate personnel, arriving some 50 minutes after the attack began. Surviving Americans were evacuated to the CIA station, which itself came under attack hours later.


The Pentagon and CIA accounts describe a reaction to the attack that, while inadequate, was the best that could be mustered. Even if so, that leaves the question of why the various agencies were not better prepared for such an emergency, given the clear warnings. Did the Obama administration’s political preoccupation with maintaining a light footprint in Libya lead to an ill-considered reliance on local militias, rather than on U.S. forces? Given the region’s instability, why were no military rapid-reaction assets — such as Special Forces or armed drones — within reach of Northern Africa?


While the agencies separately defend themselves — or not — the White House appears determined to put off any serious discussion of Benghazi until after the election. Sooner or later, however, the administration must answer questions about what increasingly looks like a major security failure — and about the policies that led to it.

</article>


</article>

[aboutime]

It was another gun running operation with the left hand not knowing what the right hand was doing.


Gaffer. I know I'm old, and probably appear senile to many. But talking about OBAMA, and HOLDER in reference to the Left hand, not knowing what the Right hand is doing. Is nothing more than how both men....SINGLE-HANDEDLY....are Jerk Off's.

[Gaffer]

Gaffer. I know I'm old, and probably appear senile to many. But talking about OBAMA, and HOLDER in reference to the Left hand, not knowing what the Right hand is doing. Is nothing more than how both men....SINGLE-HANDEDLY....are Jerk Off's.

In this case the left and right hands represent the dept of state and the CIA. Altho holder and the dark one are a couple of jerk offs.

[Nukeman]

Well this would explain somewhat why the Obama regime had a little difficulty in dealing with the attack.

It seems the "embassy" was little more than a front for a massive secret CIA operation and served very little diplomatic purpose in Benghazi. The would give idea that the attack was a well organised operation for reasons other than rioting over a film much more credence.

It would appear that the CIA simply pissed off the wrong people.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/02/benghazi-cia-libya_n_2062131.html


If it was a secret CIA operation, Obama's hands may have been tied. If the embassy was indeed just an embassy, I think the outcome would have been different.
Um you do know how embassies work don't you?? They are actually the sovereign property of the country that runs it. YOU know like a little slice of the USA in Libya or Australia!! That translates into, we can have whoever we want in there at any time..

Do you honestly want us to believe that YOU have never thought that ALL embassies around the world REGARDLESS of the country that runs it doesn't have its spies on hand. That is one of the primary functions of those facilities that's why they have "DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY"

For an educated individual you sure play dumb a lot!!!!!!!

[jafar00]

Um you do know how embassies work don't you?? They are actually the sovereign property of the country that runs it. YOU know like a little slice of the USA in Libya or Australia!! That translates into, we can have whoever we want in there at any time..

Do you honestly want us to believe that YOU have never thought that ALL embassies around the world REGARDLESS of the country that runs it doesn't have its spies on hand. That is one of the primary functions of those facilities that's why they have "DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY"

For an educated individual you sure play dumb a lot!!!!!!!

When is an embassy not an embassy?

When it's a secret base of operations for the CIA.

[jimnyc]

When is an embassy not an embassy?

When it's a secret base of operations for the CIA.

And when does an embassy stop being sovereign and becomes a legitimate target? When it's in an Islamic country.

[Nukeman]

When is an embassy not an embassy?

When it's a secret base of operations for the CIA.So are you saying the same for China, Russia, England, Australia, France, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and EVERY other country out there that has any secret service type of organization..

Like I said for someone who claims to be smart YOU sure play dumb a lot.

You do realize that Iran used their embassy to stage a attempted assassination of the Saudi UN representative!?!?!? Ohh wait it is only the grate Satan of the west that is guilty of any type of espionage... RIGHT????

[Nukeman]

When is an embassy not an embassy?

When it's a secret base of operations for the CIA.
Once again it the countries property to do with as they see fit, an act of aggression on the embassy is the SAME as attacking the country its self... Only we have a major pussy in office right now who refuses to take action. If he had allowed counter measures to happen we would have a few hundred DEAD "non-Muslim" Muslims out there, and you could be telling us that they weren't "true" Muslims so it wouldn't matter that we defended our sovereign property!!!

[aboutime]

Jafar is nothing here but a shill for the Muslim Brotherhood. Having only one purpose here, to come, throw stones, make accusations, and play a game of PRETEND, based on lies that are designed to convince the Easily-Convinced, jafar is a friendly, honorable, loving, non-threatening voice...HIDING BEHIND HATRED for anyone who doesn't follow his demands. Much like Obama, and every Terrorist who is bound, and determined to destroy ALL OF US, and our Nation.

ONE LIE AT A TIME!

[jafar00]

Jafar is nothing here but a shill for the Muslim Brotherhood.

Can you call them and remind them that they haven't paid me yet?

[aboutime]

Can you call them and remind them that they haven't paid me yet?


We all know. Your form of payment comes when you read happily, about the death of another American, or Westerner who doesn't agree with your BEHEADED mental state.