U.S. Ambassador to Libya Killed in Rocket Attack (1 Viewer)

[drummer]

You're acting like a doosh.

Thanks. That means a lot to the dead.

 

[Sand]

Another bombshell on this breaking non story

EXCLUSIVE: CIA operators were denied request for help during Benghazi attack, sources say

By Jennifer Griffin Published October 26, 2012FoxNews.com

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 was denied by U.S. officials -- 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."

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.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.c.../#ixzz2AQOdPMbN

oof. Looking forward to how this is explained. Fox News and all...can't possibly be accurate.

The only possible answer I can think of is that Obama ordered them to stand down himself, because he hates the United States and wanted the ambassador to die.

It was 4 hours between the first request and the last request. There were at least some people in the Situation Room during the attack on the safe house. If our President wasn't in the Situation room during that 4 hour period, or at least brought in the loop at some point during those 4 hours, then we have a MAJOR problem and there are a WHOLE lot of people that need to be fired.

Given his attendance record at security briefings I'd be surprised if he was there.

 

[pittstownkiller]

You're acting like a doosh.

Thanks. That means a lot to the dead.

Drummer=BORING

 

[Politician Spock]

So are posters done dancing on the dead's graves yet?

If dancing would bring their deaths closer to justice, I would. I can't imagine any of them would just want us to move on.

and here is George Michael.

and you, pantherclub and Tim are being
.

 

[FlapJacks]

Top miltary men sacked, a dead ambassador, a convoluted lie to the public and to the UN and the world, the backdrop of a Presidential election, and an administration that refuses to clear up the mud.

this thing has more intrique than ABC's Last Resort.

.

what?

Gen Carter Ham is OUT as head of the Africa National Command

 

[FlapJacks]

Top miltary men sacked, a dead ambassador, a convoluted lie to the public and to the UN and the world, the backdrop of a Presidential election, and an administration that refuses to clear up the mud.

this thing has more intrique than ABC's Last Resort.

.

what?

Gen Carter Ham is OUT as head of the Africa National Command

Rear Adm. Charles M. Gaouette OUT as the commander of the USS John C. Stennis strike group

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/navy-replaces-admiral-leading-mideast-strike-group-because-of-ongoing-investigation/

 

[moleculo]

guys, please stop quoting drummer. You are making it tough to ignore him...and from what I'm seeing in the quotes, ignoring him is probably still warranted.

TIA

 

[tommyboy]

this is pretty bad.

And how can the president get away with not answering for it now, not later. From Powerline:

Another reader, Thomas Wictor, weighs in on this point via email:

The Benghazi coverup is much worse than you think. Clearly there were air assets on the scene above the CIA annex and they were denied permission to fire.

Tyrone Woods was painting a target with a ground laser designator (GLD). Those are only used when the air asset is overhead, ready to fire. The jihadis can use cell phones with night-vision capabilities to see the laser beam, which then pinpoints the location of the person using the GLD. As a former Navy SEAL, Woods would’ve known that. He would only have exposed himself if he thought that the mortar squad was about to be taken out. The air asset didn’t fire, and Woods and Glen Doherty were killed by the mortar squad.

There was either a Spectre gunship or an armed Predator or Reaper drone overhead, and it was denied permission to fire. That’s the only explanation that fits. Woods would not have used his GLD for any other reason than to paint a target for an immediate air strike.

Only the commander of AFRICOM and the president have the authority to tell the air asset to not fire in this situation.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/331880/how-can-not-be-top-news-everywhere-kathryn-jean-lopez

 

[drummer]

guys, please stop quoting drummer. You are making it tough to ignore him...and from what I'm seeing in the quotes, ignoring him is probably still warranted.TIA

Well, if I was BYD, you'd all be eating this up.

 

[FootballDummy]

this is pretty bad.

And how can the president get away with not answering for it now, not later. From Powerline:

Another reader, Thomas Wictor, weighs in on this point via email:

The Benghazi coverup is much worse than you think. Clearly there were air assets on the scene above the CIA annex and they were denied permission to fire.

Tyrone Woods was painting a target with a ground laser designator (GLD). Those are only used when the air asset is overhead, ready to fire. The jihadis can use cell phones with night-vision capabilities to see the laser beam, which then pinpoints the location of the person using the GLD. As a former Navy SEAL, Woods would’ve known that. He would only have exposed himself if he thought that the mortar squad was about to be taken out. The air asset didn’t fire, and Woods and Glen Doherty were killed by the mortar squad.

There was either a Spectre gunship or an armed Predator or Reaper drone overhead, and it was denied permission to fire. That’s the only explanation that fits. Woods would not have used his GLD for any other reason than to paint a target for an immediate air strike.

Only the commander of AFRICOM and the president have the authority to tell the air asset to not fire in this situation.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/331880/how-can-not-be-top-news-everywhere-kathryn-jean-lopez

Some guy sent an email to the National Review? Game changer.

 

[pittstownkiller]

this is pretty bad.

And how can the president get away with not answering for it now, not later. From Powerline:

Another reader, Thomas Wictor, weighs in on this point via email:

The Benghazi coverup is much worse than you think. Clearly there were air assets on the scene above the CIA annex and they were denied permission to fire.

Tyrone Woods was painting a target with a ground laser designator (GLD). Those are only used when the air asset is overhead, ready to fire. The jihadis can use cell phones with night-vision capabilities to see the laser beam, which then pinpoints the location of the person using the GLD. As a former Navy SEAL, Woods would’ve known that. He would only have exposed himself if he thought that the mortar squad was about to be taken out. The air asset didn’t fire, and Woods and Glen Doherty were killed by the mortar squad.

There was either a Spectre gunship or an armed Predator or Reaper drone overhead, and it was denied permission to fire. That’s the only explanation that fits. Woods would not have used his GLD for any other reason than to paint a target for an immediate air strike.

Only the commander of AFRICOM and the president have the authority to tell the air asset to not fire in this situation.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/331880/how-can-not-be-top-news-everywhere-kathryn-jean-lopez

Some guy sent an email to the National Review? Game changer.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) and Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO) we're guests on Fox News and refused to answer the questions of whether or not the drones were armed; their sidestepping was blatant, as both were asked multiple times.

 

[CrossEyed]

The U.S. Mission in Benghazi convened an “emergency meeting” less than a month before the assault that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, because Al Qaeda had training camps in Benghazi and the consulate could not defend against a “coordinated attack,” according to a classified cable reviewed by Fox News.

Summarizing an Aug. 15 emergency meeting convened by the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, the Aug. 16 cable marked “SECRET” said that the State Department’s senior security officer, also known as the RSO, did not believe the consulate could be protected.

“RSO (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,” the cable said.

According to a review of the cable addressed to the Office of the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Emergency Action Committee was also briefed "on the location of approximately ten Islamist militias and AQ training camps within Benghazi … these groups ran the spectrum from Islamist militias, such as the QRF Brigade and Ansar al-Sharia, to ‘Takfirist thugs.’” Each U.S. mission has a so-called Emergency Action Committee that is responsible for security measures and emergency planning.

The details in the cable seemed to foreshadow the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. compound, which was a coordinated, commando-style assault using direct and indirect fire. Al Qaeda in North Africa and Ansar al-Sharia, both mentioned in the cable, have since been implicated in the consulate attack.

In addition to describing the security situation in Benghazi as “trending negatively,” the cable said explicitly that the mission would ask for more help. “In light of the uncertain security environment, US Mission Benghazi will submit specific requests to US Embassy Tripoli for additional physical security upgrades and staffing needs by separate cover.”

As for specific threats against the U.S., the cable warned the intelligence was not clear on the issue, cautioning that the militias in Benghazi were not concerned with any significant retaliation from the Libyan government, which had apparently lost control in Benghazi. A briefer explained that they “did not have information suggesting that these entities were targeting Americans but did caveat that (there was not) a complete picture of their intentions yet. RSO (Regional Security Officer) noted that the Benghazi militias have become more brazen in their actions and have little fear of reprisal from the (government of Libya.)”

While the administration’s public statements have suggested that the attack came without warning, the Aug. 16 cable seems to undercut those claims. It was a direct warning to the State Department that the Benghazi consulate was vulnerable to attack, that it could not be defended and that the presence of anti-U.S. militias and Al Qaeda was well-known to the U.S. intelligence community.

In a three-page cable on Sept 11, the day Stevens and the three other Americans were killed, Stevens wrote about “growing problems with security” in Benghazi and “growing frustration” with the security forces and Libyan police. The ambassador saw both as “too weak to keep the country secure.”

Fox News asked the State Department to respond to a series of questions about the Aug. 16 cable, including who was specifically charged with reviewing it and whether action was taken by Washington or Tripoli. Fox News also asked, given the specific warnings and the detailed intelligence laid out in the cable, whether the State Department considered extra measures for the consulate in light of the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks – and if no action was taken, who made that call.

The State Department press office declined to answer specific questions, citing the classified nature of the cable.

"An independent board is conducting a thorough review of the assault on our post in Benghazi," Deputy Spokesman Mark Toner said in written statement. "Once we have the board's comprehensive account of what happened, findings and recommendations, we can fully address these matters."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/31/exclusive-us-memo-warned-libya-consulate-couldnt-withstand-coordinated-attack/#ixzz2Aw03gu1i

 

[Todd Andrews]

KooKooKs strong in this thread.

 

[CrossEyed]

KooKooKs strong in this thread.

I have a biracial daughter, genius. But hey, keep up the liberal mantra that anyone opposed to Obama only has that position because they are racist.

 

[HellToupee]

KooKooKs strong in this thread.

really KKK??????Jackass.

 

[HellToupee]

KooKooKs strong in this thread.

I have a biracial daughter, genius. But hey, keep up the liberal mantra that anyone opposed to Obama only has that position because they are racist.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

KooKooKs strong in this thread.

I have a biracial daughter, genius. But hey, keep up the liberal mantra that anyone opposed to Obama only has that position because they are racist.

 

[Todd Andrews]

KooKooKs strong in this thread.

I have a biracial daughter, genius. But hey, keep up the liberal mantra that anyone opposed to Obama only has that position because they are racist.

Feeling a little defensive?

 

[FootballDummy]

this is pretty bad.

And how can the president get away with not answering for it now, not later. From Powerline:

Another reader, Thomas Wictor, weighs in on this point via email:

The Benghazi coverup is much worse than you think. Clearly there were air assets on the scene above the CIA annex and they were denied permission to fire.

Tyrone Woods was painting a target with a ground laser designator (GLD). Those are only used when the air asset is overhead, ready to fire. The jihadis can use cell phones with night-vision capabilities to see the laser beam, which then pinpoints the location of the person using the GLD. As a former Navy SEAL, Woods would’ve known that. He would only have exposed himself if he thought that the mortar squad was about to be taken out. The air asset didn’t fire, and Woods and Glen Doherty were killed by the mortar squad.

There was either a Spectre gunship or an armed Predator or Reaper drone overhead, and it was denied permission to fire. That’s the only explanation that fits. Woods would not have used his GLD for any other reason than to paint a target for an immediate air strike.

Only the commander of AFRICOM and the president have the authority to tell the air asset to not fire in this situation.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/331880/how-can-not-be-top-news-everywhere-kathryn-jean-lopez

Some guy sent an email to the National Review? Game changer.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) and Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO) we're guests on Fox News and refused to answer the questions of whether or not the drones were armed; their sidestepping was blatant, as both were asked multiple times.

So? And *were

 

[Widbil83]

KooKooKs strong in this thread.

I have a biracial daughter, genius. But hey, keep up the liberal mantra that anyone opposed to Obama only has that position because they are racist.

My guess is if Obama does win again you won't see half of these clowns in this thread defending him on this ever again.

 

[moleculo]

you guys are making it hard to ignore Todd Andrews too. Please stop quoting him.

 

[CrossEyed]

CBS news finally jumping in on ths story.

CBS News has learned that during the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, the Obama Administration did not convene its top interagency counterterrorism resource: the Counterterrorism Security Group, (CSG).

"The CSG is the one group that's supposed to know what resources every agency has. They know of multiple options and have the ability to coordinate counterterrorism assets across all the agencies," a high-ranking government official told CBS News. "They were not allowed to do their job. They were not called upon."

Information shared with CBS News from top counterterrorism sources in the government and military reveal keen frustration over the U.S. response on Sept. 11, the night Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed in a coordinated attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya.

The circumstances of the attack, including the intelligence and security situation there, will be the subject of a Senate Intelligence Committee closed hearing on Nov. 15, with additional hearings to follow.

Counterterrorism sources and internal emails reviewed by CBS News express frustration that key responders were ready to deploy, but were not called upon to help in the attack.

CBS News has agreed not to quote directly from the emails, and to protect the identities of the sources who hold sensitive counterterrorism posts within the State Department, the U.S. military and the Justice Department.

As to why the Counterterrorism Security Group was not convened, National Security Council Spokesman Tommy Vietor told CBS News "From the moment the President was briefed on the Benghazi attack, the response effort was handled by the most senior national security officials in governments. Members of the CSG were of course involved in these meetings and discussions to support their bosses."

Absent coordination from Counterterrorism Security Group, a senior U.S. counterterrorism official says the response to the crisis became more confused. The official says the FBI received a call during the attack representing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and requesting agents be deployed. But he and his colleagues agreed the agents "would not make any difference without security and other enablers to get them in the country and synch their efforts with military and diplomatic efforts to maximize their success."

Another senior counter terrorism official says a hostage rescue team was alternately asked to get ready and then stand down throughout the night, as officials seemed unable to make up their minds.

A third potential responder from a counter-terror force stationed in Europe says components of AFICOM -- the military's Africa Command based in Stuttgart, Germany -- were working on course of action during the assault. But no plan was put to use.

"Forces were positioned after the fact but not much good to those that needed it," the military source told CBS News.

"The response process was isolated at the most senior level," says an official referring to top officials in the executive branch. "My fellow counterterrorism professionals and I (were) not consulted."

The official says a protocol set forth in a classified presidential directive calls for the Counterterrorism Security Group (CSG) to be convened in the event of a possible terrorist attack. According to a public military document, the directive was designed to "synchronize the efforts of all the government agencies that have a role to play in the Global War on Terrorism."

The Administration also didn't call on the only interagency, on-call, short notice team poised to respond to terrorist incidents worldwide: the Foreign Emergency Support Team (FEST). FEST's seasoned experts leave within four hours of notification and can provide "the fastest assistance possible."

FEST Teams deployed immediately after al Qaeda bombings of U.S. embassies in East Africa in 1998, and the USS Cole in 2000, but were not used for Benghazi, to the chagrin of some insiders. It's likely that the CSG task force, if contacted, would have recommended FEST aid.

"First a tactical response was needed," says a senior U.S. counterterrorism official, "and while that was being implemented, the holistic response could have been developed and deployed within hours" which could have allowed the FBI investigate safely on site well ahead of the "24 days it took."

When asked why the FEST wasn't utilized, a State Department official said it was used previously in East Africa because of damage sustained to a U.S. Embassy "to help restore communications and other infrastructure support. In this case, that was unnecessary at Embassy Tripoli."

A White House official told us that at the start of the attack, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Martin Dempsey and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta "looked at available options, and the ones we exercised had our military forces arrive in less than 24 hours, well ahead of timelines laid out in established policies." He also said a "small group of reinforcements" was sent from Tripoli to Benghazi, but declined to say how many or what time they arrived. The Pentagon moved a team of special operators from central Europe to Sigonella, Italy but gave no other details.

Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans died in a protracted battle over the course of eight hours. It's believed two of the victims, Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, died in a mortar attack some six or seven hours after the U.S. Mission was first overrun by a terrorist mob that burned buildings and used AK-47 rifles, bombs, and mortars.

In the days after the assault, counterterrorism officials expressed dismay over what they interpreted as the Obama Administration's unwillingness to acknowledge that the attack was terrorism; and their opinion that resources which could have helped were excluded.

Counterterrorism officials from two agencies said they concluded almost immediately that the attack was by terrorists and was not spontaneous. "I came to this conclusion as soon as I heard the mortar rounds were impacting on top of the building our people were occupying," says one. "The position of the mortar must be plotted on a map, the target would have to be plotted, computations would be calculated that would result in the proper mortar tube elevation and the correct number of powder bags to be attached to the rounds."

A White House official says President Obama immediately acknowledged the assault was a terrorist attack. However, there was confusion as White House spokesman Jay Carney said three days later, "We have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack."

On Sept.16, U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice told CBS' "Face the Nation" and other talk shows that the assault appeared to have grown from a spontaneous protest over an anti-Islam video.

CBS' Bob Schieffer asked Rice whether she thought "that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?" Rice answered, "We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned."

In an interview last week, President Obama said "the minute" he became aware of the Benghazi attack, he directed his staff to "make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to do."

 

[Novice2]

Republicans still have bloodlust over this?

 

[FootballDummy]

Republicans still have bloodlust over this?

Grasping at straws.

 

[moleculo]

Republicans still have bloodlust over this?

Grasping at straws.

you guys don't believe we should question our governments response?I would strongly support de-politicizing this whole episode by delaying whatever until after Tuesday, but I do want answers as to what went wrong and how events could/should have transpired differently. I don't want answers as a republican, I want answers as an American.

 

[BeaverCleaver]

Republicans still have bloodlust over this?

Grasping at straws.

If a Republican had been President for this the MSM and the Democrats on this board would be screaming about it!

 

[CrossEyed]

Republicans still have bloodlust over this?

Grasping at straws.

you guys don't believe we should question our governments response?I would strongly support de-politicizing this whole episode by delaying whatever until after Tuesday, but I do want answers as to what went wrong and how events could/should have transpired differently. I don't want answers as a republican, I want answers as an American.

Why would you want to delay it until after Tuesday? Shouldn't people understand how this administration handed this before deciding if they want to put it back in charge for another 4 years?

 

[Sam Quentin]

by the time this thing plays out, we'll be so buried in bull#### that we'll have no idea what actually happened. It's sad that the public allows themselves to be manipulated so efficiently (both sides have done this on the libya issue to a certain extent.) A genuine quest for the actual truth will bear no fruit as everybody is blowing smoke up your ### now.

 

[humans_being]

Where are the Benghazi situation room photos? Oh that's right, he wasn't there. Only when it benefits this clown do such photos get released.

Message from Obama regarding this? Forward....

 

[CrossEyed]

So is anyone still defending Obama on this?

 

[squistion]

So is anyone still defending Obama on this?

Still nothing to see here.

 

[moleculo]

Republicans still have bloodlust over this?

Grasping at straws.

you guys don't believe we should question our governments response?I would strongly support de-politicizing this whole episode by delaying whatever until after Tuesday, but I do want answers as to what went wrong and how events could/should have transpired differently. I don't want answers as a republican, I want answers as an American.

Why would you want to delay it until after Tuesday? Shouldn't people understand how this administration handed this before deciding if they want to put it back in charge for another 4 years?

no, I don't really think so. Those that want to vote for him will do so regardless. Trying to launch a full-scale inquiry will have the scent of partisan politics, it's in-inescapable. If someone is guilty of something, deal with it post-election.IMO, how this is handled should be no different if the event happened Nov 11 instead of Sep 11. I hope the administration played it straight and didn't allow political theatre to skew their response, and likewise I hope the oversight mechanisms would respond the same.

 

[CrossEyed]

Republicans still have bloodlust over this?

Grasping at straws.

you guys don't believe we should question our governments response?I would strongly support de-politicizing this whole episode by delaying whatever until after Tuesday, but I do want answers as to what went wrong and how events could/should have transpired differently. I don't want answers as a republican, I want answers as an American.

Why would you want to delay it until after Tuesday? Shouldn't people understand how this administration handed this before deciding if they want to put it back in charge for another 4 years?

no, I don't really think so. Those that want to vote for him will do so regardless. Trying to launch a full-scale inquiry will have the scent of partisan politics, it's in-inescapable. If someone is guilty of something, deal with it post-election.IMO, how this is handled should be no different if the event happened Nov 11 instead of Sep 11. I hope the administration played it straight and didn't allow political theatre to skew their response, and likewise I hope the oversight mechanisms would respond the same.

No argument. But if it happened on Nov 11, I still would be arguing that the President should be answering questions about what actually happened.

 

[jamny]

What ever happened to U.N. ambassador Susan Rice? Don't see her around much anymore.

 

[FootballDummy]

Republicans still have bloodlust over this?

Grasping at straws.

you guys don't believe we should question our governments response?I would strongly support de-politicizing this whole episode by delaying whatever until after Tuesday, but I do want answers as to what went wrong and how events could/should have transpired differently. I don't want answers as a republican, I want answers as an American.

That would be fine. But trying to use it as a talking point in a political campaign is wrong. I think you're all going to be disappointed at what comes out. It's somewhat ludicrous to suggest that the President of the United States personally signs off on specific drone strikes. As to who was responsible, wasn't there an Admiral or a General that got sacked? That could be a clue.

 

[cstu]

So is anyone still defending Obama on this?

Please tell what what is untrue here and how Obama - without the benefit of hindsight - could have prevented anything.Link

Benghazi questions fuel fierce partisan debate

By MATTHEW LEE

Associated Press

WASHINGTON — The deadly military-style assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, has raised numerous foreign policy and national security questions and fueled a fierce, partisan election debate over the Obama administration’s handling of the attack.

The strike that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans is either proof of President Barack Obama’s leadership failures or a tragic event that occurred despite the administration’s best efforts to protect the compound and respond in the aftermath of the attack, according to highly charged arguments on both sides.

Administration officials have warned against drawing conclusions from individual documents that have leaked into the public sphere. They maintain that a full picture of what happened and any assessment of blame can only be determined after a complete review of all the evidence. But as documents continue to surface in the final days of the presidential campaign, the intensity of allegations of administration impropriety or incompetence has risen.

A look at what is known, what is still unanswered and who is investigating the incident that has called into doubt Washington’s ability to predict such events, secure American personnel in dangerous places and track down those responsible.

THE UNDISPUTED FACTS:

At 9:40 p.m. local time on Sept. 11, the 11th anniversary of the terrorist attacks in the United States, organized, well-armed attackers stormed the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. The attack occurred within hours of demonstrators in neighboring Egypt scaling the walls of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo to protest an American-made, anti-Islam film. Those protests spread in the following days across the Muslim world from Morocco to India, with 50 people killed.

The attackers breached the Benghazi consulate’s perimeter and set fire to parts of the compound, including the building where Stevens, his security guard and State Department information officer Sean Smith, took refuge in a safe room. Diplomatic security agents on the site notified Washington, the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli and a nearby CIA office of the attack. They tried, unsuccessfully, to repel the assault. Reinforcements arrived from the CIA annex to evacuate those on the compound, but Smith was already dead and Stevens could not be found. The group fell back to the CIA annex, which later came under well-aimed mortar fire, killing CIA contractors Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, both former Navy SEALs. The bodies of the victims and the survivors of the attack were evacuated from Benghazi.

National Security Adviser Tom Donilon advised Obama of the attack at about 5 p.m. in Washington (11 p.m. in Libya) while he was meeting with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey. Obama ordered that the U.S. begin moving military assets into the region to prepare for a range of contingencies. Those didn’t arrive until the fighting was over at 4 a.m. Libya time, or 10 p.m. in Washington.

THE UNANSWERED QUESTIONS:

Q: Was there an intelligence failure? Did the Obama administration know about threats to the Benghazi consulate that could have allowed it to either prevent or turn back the attack?

A: Multiple senior administration officials have said there was no specific, credible threat information about a planned attack on the consulate on Sept. 11 or any other date. U.S. officials have said that while they now believe the attack was planned, it appears that it was planned a few hours in advance, not days or weeks.

However, those officials also have noted a serious deterioration in the security situation in Benghazi in the months leading up to the attack, including several previous incidents at the consulate itself, the office of the International Red Cross and an attempt on the life of the British ambassador to Libya.

Former Libya-based security officials have said the threat environment was extremely dangerous and Stevens himself had written cables back to Washington stressing the worsening conditions and heightened extremist activity. And documents found at the site six weeks after the attack indicate that consulate employees noticed a local Libyan police officer taking photos of the consulate from a building across the street on the morning of Sept. 11, according to Foreign Policy magazine.

The White House was aware of a growing terrorist threat in the region. It signed off a year ago on a new counterterrorism task force in North Africa to combat what it believes is a growing threat from al-Qaida-linked militants in northern Mali, Libya and elsewhere in the region. An elite Delta Force team has been in the region for six months, beginning to set up its intelligence and targeting network.

Q: Should the administration have increased security at the consulate based on the danger in Benghazi? Would it have made a difference?

A: State Department officials have testified to Congress that security at the compound was adequate for the assessed threat level. Those same officials have acknowledged that the security was clearly inadequate for the size and scale of the Sept. 11 attack. Fox News has reported, citing a classified cable, that consulate security staffers warned a month before the attack that the Benghazi compound was vulnerable. Appeals for additional manpower from the former regional security officer at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli and the commander of a Tripoli-based military team were denied. But officials insist there is no guarantee that the requested extra support would have been enough to deter or defend against such a sustained attack. The consulate was lightly guarded compared with other diplomatic missions of its size in volatile locations.



Q: Was the immediate response to the attack inadequate? Did officials in Washington turn down urgent appeals for assistance from the intelligence community, and the military and did authorities on the ground tell would-be responders to “stand down” as the assault was happening?

A: Senior intelligence officials have denied reports that officials in Washington rejected requests for CIA agents at the nearby annex to respond to the consulate attack. These officials insist that a half-dozen security forces from the CIA annex responded within 25 minutes of the first call for help from the consulate. Armed with the small arms they normally carry — and with no response from Libyan officials who were asked to provide heavy weaponry — they helped rescue some State Department personnel and repel the militants. An unarmed Defense Department drone aircraft was quickly moved overhead to provide surveillance video for the CIA on the ground during the night. Two military members were with the CIA team that flew from Tripoli to Benghazi during the night to provide assistance. Panetta, meanwhile, ordered two teams of special operations forces from Fort Bragg, N.C., and central Europe to head to the area, and sent a Marine Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team to Libya. The Marine team got to Tripoli, but by then the Americans had already been flown out of Libya. The commando teams got to Sigonella Naval Air Station in Sicily, Italy, but arrived after the fight was over. Two of the CIA security officers, Woods and Doherty, died in a mortar attack just before dawn when insurgents assaulted the CIA annex, where the Americans had taken refuge.

Q: Did the administration intentionally downplay the attack by initially describing it as a response to the anti-Islam movie and not specifically an “act of terrorism”? Is the administration trying to cover up al-Qaida links to the attack to benefit Obama politically in his re-election campaign?

A: It’s unclear what motivations, if any, were behind the administration’s messaging, but Obama heatedly denied any political motivation in one of his debates with GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney.

In public statements, administration officials did link the Benghazi attack to the anti-Islam film by saying it appeared to have sprung from the same anger that sparked the violent protests elsewhere. Those statements, though, such as widely criticized comments by U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, were couched as preliminary findings based on the best available evidence at the time.

Intelligence officials say their assessment — from a protest gone bad to an orchestrated attack — evolved as more information became available. They say that while early reports indicated extremists were involved in the assault, initial public statements were deliberately cautious and limited since they involved classified intelligence. While it has become clear that information was coming in in real time during the attack, there are still questions about how quickly conflicting reports were sorted out and how high up the chain of command the information went.

State Department officials have said they never concluded the attack began as a spontaneous demonstration against the movie and said further that there was no protest outside the consulate before the assault occurred. However, they also stress that they made no immediate conclusions about the origins or impetus for the attack. Eyewitnesses have told various news organizations, including The New York Times, that some of the attackers said they were angered by the film, but there is no evidence yet to suggest that that was their motivation to storm the compound.

Q: Who did it?

A: That is still unclear. The Tunisian government is holding as a suspect a Tunisian man named Ali Harzi, who was arrested in Turkey and may have some ties to the attack. Emails sent from the State Department to the White House and other government agencies on the evening of the attack reported that the militant group Ansar al-Sharia had claimed responsibility, leading to charges that the administration knew it was a terror attack and not protesters. However, the group subsequently denied responsibility for the attack and there are questions about whether the initial claim was credible. U.S. intelligence also intercepted phone calls in which al-Sharia members were bragging about pulling off the attack to members of Al-Qaida in the Islamic Mahgreb, an offshoot of al-Qaida.

Q: Who is investigating the incident?

A: In addition to an FBI investigation, which is required when an American official is killed in the line of duty overseas, there are at least four congressional investigations and several State Department probes now under way. The FBI will try to determine who actually committed the attack and killed the four Americans with an eye toward potential prosecution or other action. The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is looking into possible administration negligence related to security at the consulate and the response to attack. The House and Senate Intelligence and Foreign Affairs committees are also seeking answers to the questions. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has appointed an independent accountability review board to examine any State Department failures and make recommendations on diplomatic security. The State Department’s inspector general has informed Congress that his office will be making its own inquiries.

 

[CrossEyed]

So is anyone still defending Obama on this?

Please tell what what is untrue here and how Obama - without the benefit of hindsight - could have prevented anything.Link

Benghazi questions fuel fierce partisan debate

By MATTHEW LEE

Associated Press

WASHINGTON — The deadly military-style assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, has raised numerous foreign policy and national security questions and fueled a fierce, partisan election debate over the Obama administration’s handling of the attack.

The strike that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans is either proof of President Barack Obama’s leadership failures or a tragic event that occurred despite the administration’s best efforts to protect the compound and respond in the aftermath of the attack, according to highly charged arguments on both sides.

Administration officials have warned against drawing conclusions from individual documents that have leaked into the public sphere. They maintain that a full picture of what happened and any assessment of blame can only be determined after a complete review of all the evidence. But as documents continue to surface in the final days of the presidential campaign, the intensity of allegations of administration impropriety or incompetence has risen.

A look at what is known, what is still unanswered and who is investigating the incident that has called into doubt Washington’s ability to predict such events, secure American personnel in dangerous places and track down those responsible.

THE UNDISPUTED FACTS:

At 9:40 p.m. local time on Sept. 11, the 11th anniversary of the terrorist attacks in the United States, organized, well-armed attackers stormed the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. The attack occurred within hours of demonstrators in neighboring Egypt scaling the walls of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo to protest an American-made, anti-Islam film. Those protests spread in the following days across the Muslim world from Morocco to India, with 50 people killed.

The attackers breached the Benghazi consulate’s perimeter and set fire to parts of the compound, including the building where Stevens, his security guard and State Department information officer Sean Smith, took refuge in a safe room. Diplomatic security agents on the site notified Washington, the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli and a nearby CIA office of the attack. They tried, unsuccessfully, to repel the assault. Reinforcements arrived from the CIA annex to evacuate those on the compound, but Smith was already dead and Stevens could not be found. The group fell back to the CIA annex, which later came under well-aimed mortar fire, killing CIA contractors Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, both former Navy SEALs. The bodies of the victims and the survivors of the attack were evacuated from Benghazi.

National Security Adviser Tom Donilon advised Obama of the attack at about 5 p.m. in Washington (11 p.m. in Libya) while he was meeting with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey. Obama ordered that the U.S. begin moving military assets into the region to prepare for a range of contingencies. Those didn’t arrive until the fighting was over at 4 a.m. Libya time, or 10 p.m. in Washington.

THE UNANSWERED QUESTIONS:

Q: Was there an intelligence failure? Did the Obama administration know about threats to the Benghazi consulate that could have allowed it to either prevent or turn back the attack?

A: Multiple senior administration officials have said there was no specific, credible threat information about a planned attack on the consulate on Sept. 11 or any other date. U.S. officials have said that while they now believe the attack was planned, it appears that it was planned a few hours in advance, not days or weeks.

However, those officials also have noted a serious deterioration in the security situation in Benghazi in the months leading up to the attack, including several previous incidents at the consulate itself, the office of the International Red Cross and an attempt on the life of the British ambassador to Libya.

Former Libya-based security officials have said the threat environment was extremely dangerous and Stevens himself had written cables back to Washington stressing the worsening conditions and heightened extremist activity. And documents found at the site six weeks after the attack indicate that consulate employees noticed a local Libyan police officer taking photos of the consulate from a building across the street on the morning of Sept. 11, according to Foreign Policy magazine.

The White House was aware of a growing terrorist threat in the region. It signed off a year ago on a new counterterrorism task force in North Africa to combat what it believes is a growing threat from al-Qaida-linked militants in northern Mali, Libya and elsewhere in the region. An elite Delta Force team has been in the region for six months, beginning to set up its intelligence and targeting network.

Q: Should the administration have increased security at the consulate based on the danger in Benghazi? Would it have made a difference?

A: State Department officials have testified to Congress that security at the compound was adequate for the assessed threat level. Those same officials have acknowledged that the security was clearly inadequate for the size and scale of the Sept. 11 attack. Fox News has reported, citing a classified cable, that consulate security staffers warned a month before the attack that the Benghazi compound was vulnerable. Appeals for additional manpower from the former regional security officer at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli and the commander of a Tripoli-based military team were denied. But officials insist there is no guarantee that the requested extra support would have been enough to deter or defend against such a sustained attack. The consulate was lightly guarded compared with other diplomatic missions of its size in volatile locations.



Q: Was the immediate response to the attack inadequate? Did officials in Washington turn down urgent appeals for assistance from the intelligence community, and the military and did authorities on the ground tell would-be responders to “stand down” as the assault was happening?

A: Senior intelligence officials have denied reports that officials in Washington rejected requests for CIA agents at the nearby annex to respond to the consulate attack. These officials insist that a half-dozen security forces from the CIA annex responded within 25 minutes of the first call for help from the consulate. Armed with the small arms they normally carry — and with no response from Libyan officials who were asked to provide heavy weaponry — they helped rescue some State Department personnel and repel the militants. An unarmed Defense Department drone aircraft was quickly moved overhead to provide surveillance video for the CIA on the ground during the night. Two military members were with the CIA team that flew from Tripoli to Benghazi during the night to provide assistance. Panetta, meanwhile, ordered two teams of special operations forces from Fort Bragg, N.C., and central Europe to head to the area, and sent a Marine Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team to Libya. The Marine team got to Tripoli, but by then the Americans had already been flown out of Libya. The commando teams got to Sigonella Naval Air Station in Sicily, Italy, but arrived after the fight was over. Two of the CIA security officers, Woods and Doherty, died in a mortar attack just before dawn when insurgents assaulted the CIA annex, where the Americans had taken refuge.

Q: Did the administration intentionally downplay the attack by initially describing it as a response to the anti-Islam movie and not specifically an “act of terrorism”? Is the administration trying to cover up al-Qaida links to the attack to benefit Obama politically in his re-election campaign?

A: It’s unclear what motivations, if any, were behind the administration’s messaging, but Obama heatedly denied any political motivation in one of his debates with GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney.

In public statements, administration officials did link the Benghazi attack to the anti-Islam film by saying it appeared to have sprung from the same anger that sparked the violent protests elsewhere. Those statements, though, such as widely criticized comments by U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, were couched as preliminary findings based on the best available evidence at the time.

Intelligence officials say their assessment — from a protest gone bad to an orchestrated attack — evolved as more information became available. They say that while early reports indicated extremists were involved in the assault, initial public statements were deliberately cautious and limited since they involved classified intelligence. While it has become clear that information was coming in in real time during the attack, there are still questions about how quickly conflicting reports were sorted out and how high up the chain of command the information went.

State Department officials have said they never concluded the attack began as a spontaneous demonstration against the movie and said further that there was no protest outside the consulate before the assault occurred. However, they also stress that they made no immediate conclusions about the origins or impetus for the attack. Eyewitnesses have told various news organizations, including The New York Times, that some of the attackers said they were angered by the film, but there is no evidence yet to suggest that that was their motivation to storm the compound.

Q: Who did it?

A: That is still unclear. The Tunisian government is holding as a suspect a Tunisian man named Ali Harzi, who was arrested in Turkey and may have some ties to the attack. Emails sent from the State Department to the White House and other government agencies on the evening of the attack reported that the militant group Ansar al-Sharia had claimed responsibility, leading to charges that the administration knew it was a terror attack and not protesters. However, the group subsequently denied responsibility for the attack and there are questions about whether the initial claim was credible. U.S. intelligence also intercepted phone calls in which al-Sharia members were bragging about pulling off the attack to members of Al-Qaida in the Islamic Mahgreb, an offshoot of al-Qaida.

Q: Who is investigating the incident?

A: In addition to an FBI investigation, which is required when an American official is killed in the line of duty overseas, there are at least four congressional investigations and several State Department probes now under way. The FBI will try to determine who actually committed the attack and killed the four Americans with an eye toward potential prosecution or other action. The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is looking into possible administration negligence related to security at the consulate and the response to attack. The House and Senate Intelligence and Foreign Affairs committees are also seeking answers to the questions. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has appointed an independent accountability review board to examine any State Department failures and make recommendations on diplomatic security. The State Department’s inspector general has informed Congress that his office will be making its own inquiries.

Did you read the CBS article? There were top counterterrorist officials who were never consulted. For 7 hours there was basically no effort at all to do anything to help our people, and this after requests for additional security had been ignored and other agencies had pulled their people out if Benghazi because of the danger. But you keep believing the left's spin on all of this. They couldn't have possible done anything to prevent it and were completely truthful about what they knew after the attack.

 

[pittstownkiller]

The Administration announces today that they will let Congress look at classified documents relating to Benghazi tomorrow and Sunday only, when most of Congress has left Washington; Congress will not be allowed to remove the documents or copy them. I love the "transparency" of this administration.

 

[CrossEyed]

A few Democrats, including Dianne Feinstein, are starting to request the administration start answering questions. I don't think this is going away soon.

 

[pittstownkiller]

A few Democrats, including Dianne Feinstein, are starting to request the administration start answering questions. I don't think this is going away soon.

John Kerry too. Nice to see Obama booked himself a trip to Burma.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

A few Democrats, including Dianne Feinstein, are starting to request the administration start answering questions. I don't think this is going away soon.

John Kerry too. Nice to see Obama booked himself a trip to Burma.

What do you want him to do? He hasn't been overseas in awhile. You guys just pick up right where you leave off. You lose the election, start #####ing again. This all will fall on Hillary in the end, it's not a president's job to tactically secure a consulate. I think people said that on page 1, yet here we are. If you are looking for a fall guy, it won't be the president.

 

[CrossEyed]

A few Democrats, including Dianne Feinstein, are starting to request the administration start answering questions. I don't think this is going away soon.

John Kerry too. Nice to see Obama booked himself a trip to Burma.

Well, he has been hard at work campaigning for the past 6 years, he needs a rest.

 

[Limp Ditka]

A few Democrats, including Dianne Feinstein, are starting to request the administration start answering questions. I don't think this is going away soon.

John Kerry too. Nice to see Obama booked himself a trip to Burma.

What do you want him to do? He hasn't been overseas in awhile. You guys just pick up right where you leave off. You lose the election, start #####ing again. This all will fall on Hillary in the end, it's not a president's job to tactically secure a consulate. I think people said that on page 1, yet here we are. If you are looking for a fall guy, it won't be the president.

But if you're Elephant Brass, you have no problem with Hillary taking the fall. It weakens the (D) 2016 contenders significantly because that buffoon Biden isn't ever going to see the main seat in the Oval Office.

 

[datonn]

A few Democrats, including Dianne Feinstein, are starting to request the administration start answering questions. I don't think this is going away soon.

John Kerry too. Nice to see Obama booked himself a trip to Burma.

What do you want him to do? He hasn't been overseas in awhile. You guys just pick up right where you leave off. You lose the election, start #####ing again. This all will fall on Hillary in the end, it's not a president's job to tactically secure a consulate. I think people said that on page 1, yet here we are. If you are looking for a fall guy, it won't be the president.

But if you're Elephant Brass, you have no problem with Hillary taking the fall. It weakens the (D) 2016 contenders significantly because that buffoon Biden isn't ever going to see the main seat in the Oval Office.

(?) Hillary Clinton will be 69 by the 2016 election. Do folks really think she's gonna make a strong push for the job after eight years of being out of elections? I guess maybe she could. But that seems awfully old for a candidate. McCain was 72 when he ran for POTUS, and there were a LOT of whispers that he was too old (AKA "do you want Sarah Palin only one heartbeat away?). IDK...after the past two elections, I expect one (or both) parties to nominate a "minority," and at least one of the parties to nominate a woman. But Hillary at age 69 seems a bit old. To me.

 

[Limp Ditka]

A few Democrats, including Dianne Feinstein, are starting to request the administration start answering questions. I don't think this is going away soon.

John Kerry too. Nice to see Obama booked himself a trip to Burma.

What do you want him to do? He hasn't been overseas in awhile. You guys just pick up right where you leave off. You lose the election, start #####ing again. This all will fall on Hillary in the end, it's not a president's job to tactically secure a consulate. I think people said that on page 1, yet here we are. If you are looking for a fall guy, it won't be the president.

But if you're Elephant Brass, you have no problem with Hillary taking the fall. It weakens the (D) 2016 contenders significantly because that buffoon Biden isn't ever going to see the main seat in the Oval Office.

(?) Hillary Clinton will be 69 by the 2016 election. Do folks really think she's gonna make a strong push for the job after eight years of being out of elections? I guess maybe she could. But that seems awfully old for a candidate. McCain was 72 when he ran for POTUS, and there were a LOT of whispers that he was too old (AKA "do you want Sarah Palin only one heartbeat away?). IDK...after the past two elections, I expect one (or both) parties to nominate a "minority," and at least one of the parties to nominate a woman. But Hillary at age 69 seems a bit old. To me.

Women live longer. Thatcher was PM of Britian until mid 70s. We aren't too far removed from elderly being POTUS (Reagan, Bush 1) I think if she survived 8 years of SoS unscathed, and a clean bill of health (something McCain didn't have), she had a legit chance to get the nom. She'll fall for this and any idea of that happening is done.

 

[timschochet]

I've read quite a bit about this. I've read Paul Wolfowitz's blog- obviously he's no friend of Obama, but even he admits that there was little that could have been done beforehand to prevent this. Like Pearl Harbor, like 9/11 (though obviously those were much larger, much more significant events) we were surprised. That's really the beginning and the end of it. Only partisans and haters of Obama will continue to seek out a conspiracy theory. The rest of the public will ignore their attempts, as they should. There's nothing there.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Like I said before, I've worked under five presidents now and the last three I've had an opportunity to interact with the administrations by proxy. They make policy, they give direction and they establish certain protocol that is particular to the administration. Clinton's people were fairly open, seemed to think things out and provided answers to queries where there were murky instructions.

The Bush Administration was disorganized, decentralized and aggressive. In the DoD we just did whatever we liked, we got the money and we did what we do best. Some of it was great because he allowed programs to grow and prosper but there was also a lot of waste.

The current administration is guarded, very detailed and aware of any and all political implications to the level of minutia. They do have good rapport with military leaders because they are really into family programs that impact the uniformed folks, which is cool. Same with the VA, had Obama lost I would have said one of his greatest accomplishments was his work with the VA and veteran's causes. But operationally, day-to-day this is not an easy administration to work with. They hold things way to close to the vest and are completely opposite of the Bush administration in that Bush was completely reactive, Obama is way too deliberate.

With this Libya mess they obviously made mistakes prior to the attack but I think it would have happened to about anyone, controlling all acts of terrorism on foreign soil is a monster task. Where they have failed as a whole is the response to query, the suppression of information to some degree and what seems to some as ignoring the problem. What they've done is create a barrier with the public when that barrier probably doesn't need to exist.

Admit where the administration made mistakes, tell us how they will be corrected going forward and answer the tough questions. But the deaths do not fall on Obama, this is something that is State Department centric. Of all the government agencies I can assure you, the State Department is the most autonomous (outside clandestine service and maybe in many cases even more than them), the most guarded and the most self-absorbed. It is something that has gone on for as long as I've been around, and probably a lot longer. State Dept folk are a different breed, they live in some fairytale lands where they think they run the world. That leads to mistakes, and they sure have had a lot of them over the decades. I know Hillary was trying to fix some of the inherent problems with the agency, but from what I hear it hasn't changed much. It is the one government agency that I would not work for domestically.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Stevens' sister was on CNN tonight with Erin Burnett. She didn't seem to share in the verve for heads to roll over this. Just something to consider.

 

[pittstownkiller]

A few Democrats, including Dianne Feinstein, are starting to request the administration start answering questions. I don't think this is going away soon.

John Kerry too. Nice to see Obama booked himself a trip to Burma.

What do you want him to do? He hasn't been overseas in awhile. You guys just pick up right where you leave off. You lose the election, start #####ing again. This all will fall on Hillary in the end, it's not a president's job to tactically secure a consulate. I think people said that on page 1, yet here we are. If you are looking for a fall guy, it won't be the president.

I want him to lead, to be forthright with the American people; the hunker down mentality here (and with F&F) is wrong and should not be tolerated by the people. Congress is asking question, the people are asking questions, even the media are asking questions; still hearing that we are going to investigate is a joke. I get that you work in the government but you work for the American people, and so does the President, we are entitled to answers. The games the Administration is playing makes them look guilty of something and I don't know what that would even be except for trying to spin a story, incompetence, or to hide the truth. I am also laughing at the concept of him not being overseas in awhile; no time like during a Congressional investigation to get out of the country. I think they deported Hillary Clinton to wherever Eric Holder is holed up.

 

[CrossEyed]

Like I said before, I've worked under five presidents now and the last three I've had an opportunity to interact with the administrations by proxy. They make policy, they give direction and they establish certain protocol that is particular to the administration. Clinton's people were fairly open, seemed to think things out and provided answers to queries where there were murky instructions. The Bush Administration was disorganized, decentralized and aggressive. In the DoD we just did whatever we liked, we got the money and we did what we do best. Some of it was great because he allowed programs to grow and prosper but there was also a lot of waste.The current administration is guarded, very detailed and aware of any and all political implications to the level of minutia. They do have good rapport with military leaders because they are really into family programs that impact the uniformed folks, which is cool. Same with the VA, had Obama lost I would have said one of his greatest accomplishments was his work with the VA and veteran's causes. But operationally, day-to-day this is not an easy administration to work with. They hold things way to close to the vest and are completely opposite of the Bush administration in that Bush was completely reactive, Obama is way too deliberate. With this Libya mess they obviously made mistakes prior to the attack but I think it would have happened to about anyone, controlling all acts of terrorism on foreign soil is a monster task. Where they have failed as a whole is the response to query, the suppression of information to some degree and what seems to some as ignoring the problem. What they've done is create a barrier with the public when that barrier probably doesn't need to exist. Admit where the administration made mistakes, tell us how they will be corrected going forward and answer the tough questions. But the deaths do not fall on Obama, this is something that is State Department centric. Of all the government agencies I can assure you, the State Department is the most autonomous (outside clandestine service and maybe in many cases even more than them), the most guarded and the most self-absorbed. It is something that has gone on for as long as I've been around, and probably a lot longer. State Dept folk are a different breed, they live in some fairytale lands where they think they run the world. That leads to mistakes, and they sure have had a lot of them over the decades. I know Hillary was trying to fix some of the inherent problems with the agency, but from what I hear it hasn't changed much. It is the one government agency that I would not work for domestically.

Interesting perspective. Thanks for sharing.