Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2012 16:44:05 GMT -5
Like most of us who are interested in this topic, I've read many accounts of the incident. I'm not sure we'll ever find out all the details, but it seems as if the timing differences are in a matter of minutes rather than hours. Let's take the damn politics out of the equation and try to come up with a solution.
|
|
|
Post by boxcar on Nov 13, 2012 17:55:30 GMT -5
IMHO we have finally reached the bottom of this story. It looks like a CIA cover up at the very top.
>>From the beginning the story never added up and the YouTube video excuse has been proven a complete lie, but the recent revelations of an affair between General David Petraeus and biographer Paula Broadwell may have given us the missing link to this whole thing. It isn't the affair itself that gives us more information, but the affair bringing attention to words spoken by Broadwell in Denver on October 26. She said the CIA was holding prisoners at the annex in Benghazi and Fox News has confirmed with another source this was the case.<<
This broad Broadwell was one Hell of a security leak and it seems Petraeus lied to Congress. Both Petraeus and Clinton are trying to duck out of the Congressional hearings.
And when facts are stated and quotes are made, it is not necessarily being political. I am not going to be like the news media and squash anything anti Obama. If the shoe fits, he can wear it.
>>I'm not sure we'll ever find out all the details, but it seems as if the timing differences are in a matter of minutes rather than hours.<<
This is military intelligence in action? The CIA had hours to react and did not. We have yet to learn just who caused the delay.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2012 9:25:19 GMT -5
">>I'm not sure we'll ever find out all the details, but it seems as if the timing differences are in a matter of minutes rather than hours.<<
This is military intelligence in action? The CIA had hours to react and did not. We have yet to learn just who caused the delay."
Having served my entire career in intelligence and doing much the same for many years as a civilian, I can assure you that this field is an imprecise science. It is far more rare that intel is real-time than you are led to believe. Our successes are a very low percentage when compared to the failures and often they are pure luck. I doubt that we will ever find out EXACTLY what happened and the time sequence of it all. We may be told what it is, but I'm not sure I would believe it. To me, this is a witch hunt, an exercise in trying to find someone to blame and then crucify them.
|
|
|
Post by mcnoch on Nov 14, 2012 10:14:23 GMT -5
...Paula Broadwell may have given us the missing link to this whole thing. It isn't the affair itself that gives us more information, but the affair bringing attention to words spoken by Broadwell in Denver on October 26. She said the CIA was holding prisoners at the annex in Benghazi and Fox News has confirmed with another source this was the case.<< She was repeating only the information which FOX News had broadcasted as "confirmed" before. So this is not a valid confirmation for the FOX News claim. Fox News had by then already dropped the story as it was denied strictly as wrong, but that was unknown to Broadwell.
|
|
|
Post by jerryfmcompushaft on Nov 14, 2012 14:48:43 GMT -5
To me, Denny, someone should be crucified! Not about the lies and cover up but the gross neglegence in not providing sufficient security in a known dangerous location. Security in place - withdrawn for whatever reason. Multiple requests for additional assets - denied. Unacceptable.... Who is at fault? Somebody..... Let Petreaus and his sexual exploits take a back seat - that's not the story.
|
|
|
Post by mcnoch on Nov 14, 2012 15:28:07 GMT -5
But how do you want to secure such a building if you have to take a building that is not build to the latest embassy standards, if the number of own security is limited, the space is restricted, etc... The only choice would be so stay out of all countries where you don't have a building that is fulfilling all your security requirements. That is not possible in most parts of the world, especially not in hot spot areas in the Middle East and not even in Berlin all the standards could be met, because the US embassy is in a historic location.
Who was crucified after the storming of the US embassy in Jedda in 2004? No ambassador, but five consular employees were killed back then.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2012 16:59:01 GMT -5
From what little I've been able to glean from press reports, there was an error of hindsight that took place. A decision had already been made to remove appropriate security because it was deemed to be unnecessary at the time. That's where hindsight comes in. I don't know if my thoughts are correct, but if they are, I don't what actions would be appropriate from the government after blame is fixed.
|
|
|
Post by boxcar on Nov 14, 2012 17:16:16 GMT -5
Petreaus goes before Congress tomorrow (Thursday). That should be interesting.
|
|
|
Post by boxcar on Nov 16, 2012 13:35:50 GMT -5
Former CIA Director David Petraeus stoked the controversy over the Obama administration's handling of the Libya terror attack, testifying that references to "Al Qaeda involvement" were stripped from his agency's original talking points -- while other intelligence officials were unable to say who changed the memo, according to a top lawmaker who was briefed.
Petraeus' testimony both challenges the Obama administration's repeated claims that the attack was a "spontaneous" protest over an anti-Islam video, and according to King conflicts with his own briefing to lawmakers on Sept. 14. Sources have said Petraeus, in that briefing, also described the attack as a protest that spun out of control.
|
|
|
Post by boxcar on Nov 16, 2012 14:18:40 GMT -5
Denny>>Like most of us who are interested in this topic, I've read many accounts of the incident. I'm not sure we'll ever find out all the details, but it seems as if the timing differences are in a matter of minutes rather than hours. Let's take the damn politics out of the equation and try to come up with a solution. <<
You can’t take the politics out of the equation. It is all politics and CYA. Someone in the administration would have us believe it was all the fault of people in the US and their anti-Islam video. (and note the time line below).
From Guy Benson: A few points: (1) This version of events aligns with the preponderance of existing evidence, which has already indicated that top US officials knew about the terrorism connection within at least 24 hours of the attack. Subsequent reporting has revealed that a more precise intel timeline closes that window to just two hours, and that Benghazi consulate staff sent urgent cables warning of a brewing raid in the hours immediately preceding the attack. (2) These assertions belie liberals' excuse-making on Susan Rice's behalf and expose the president's faux indignation during his first post-election press conference as contrived and phony. Five days after the attack, Rice was deployed on every major Sunday morning news program to recite talking points that directly contradicted the immediate (and fairly obvious) intelligence. According to Petraeus' testimony, the initial information provided by the US intelligence community established a clear link to terrorism, yet Rice told the American people that the administration had no reason to believe the raid was premeditated, adding that the violence grew out of "spontaneous" protests related to an irrelevant online video. Obama passionately stated this week that Rice didn't have any special knowledge of what actually transpired in Benghazi before she appeared on those shows (which begs the question of why she, of all people, was designated as the White House's point person). She was speaking at the direction of the White House, he explained. If this is true, someone at the White House radically revised her talking points. Who did this, and why
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2012 16:38:42 GMT -5
There's just some things that people like you and me will never know.
What I read about Rice is that she fed the media exactly what she was told. At least according to the testimony of the Assistant CIA head (?) she knew nothing more at the time of her presser. It's just that we as Americans seem to have to have a scapegoat for everything.
|
|
|
Post by boxcar on Nov 16, 2012 23:42:02 GMT -5
Yes, Rice did as she was told. Now the question that will never be answered is - who told her to say what she did five times on television one Sunday morning? Why the cover up when the facts were known two hours after the riot began?
As I stated previously, my opinion is that there were those who wanted to put the blame on the United States for an anti-Islamic video. It had to be made to seem that we had caused the problem in the first place. It was all our fault, not those nice Moslems.
|
|
|
Post by mcnoch on Nov 17, 2012 4:13:36 GMT -5
I think one has to accept that in the first 24-48 hours the situation was not that clear as it now with hindsight. And given the sometimes dramatic reaction the US media is showing with anything related to terrorism, it was a natural selection to start with the least dramatic of the possible scenarios. But later on, one should have revised these first statements.
|
|
|
Post by boxcar on Nov 17, 2012 13:53:07 GMT -5
M>>I think one has to accept that in the first 24-48 hours the situation was not that clear,<<
Gen. Petraeaus (last Friday) has stated that the CIA knew it was a al qaeda action within two hours of the attack and stated so in a memo. Our White House is saying someone must have altered the words in the memo, and that those were not the words they received. (the important point here is the time line)
It will also be noted that the general gave quite a different story to Congress, a few days after the attack, when he gave the impression it was just mob action that got out of control. (and then control was denied?)
|
|
|
Post by mcnoch on Nov 17, 2012 14:47:34 GMT -5
I understand that, but
1) In each intelligence service you will find – at least at the start of events - conflicting interpretations for the same event. With more and more data coming in the some interpretations are becoming stronger and stronger, others are disproven and dropped. I doubt that the CIA was able to say within a few hours for sure that it was an AQ operation. There was of course an interpretation that said so, but there were others as well, even if they were dropped later when the evidences for an AQ-operation were mounting.
2) The White House is not the CIA. So even if everybody inside the CIA would have been convinced within hours that it was an AQ operation, it is just one important voice of the many important voices which give their interpretation to the US President, who then will have to decide with which opinion to go.
3) I reread what Petraeaus said and I have the feeling that he said this to correct the alleged wrong impression in public that the CIA had no clue what happened. As I said under 1.) I’m sure that the CIA had a working hypothesis that it was an AQ-operation immediately and was working to proof or disproof it.
One off-topic question. I always read “Gen. Petraeaus”, I thought that he had left the military before becoming the CIA director, so wouldn’t it be correct to say “retired Gen. Petraeaus” or “former General ….”. Is the former military rank of a person in the US part of that person’s name, like an academic title? This seems to be different here in Germany. The former rank or function is sometimes added to make it easier to understand the role of this person in a context and sometimes it is named for honorable reasons, but always with an “a.d.” or “former” to show that this is not an actual position.
|
|