chess online
| ||||||||
| From | Message | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 softy<The question is WHAT did he [obama] do to secure our personnel? WHAT did he do at all? He did NOT do anything to help anybody. He did NOT order military strikes on the attackers. He did NOT order any available people into the compound to help rescue them... in fact he ordered them to "Stand Down" and NOT help. Or, his staff did. it appears you were jumping to conclusions, as you always do, based on ignorance and right wing extremist's talking points, and based on no evidence other than the lack of knowledge. <"The CIA rushed security operatives to an American diplomatic compound in Libya within 25 minutes after it had come under attack and played a more central role in the effort to fend off a night-long siege than has been acknowledged publicly, U.S. intelligence officials said Thursday. The agency mobilized the evacuation effort, took control of an unarmed U.S. military drone to map possible escape routes, dispatched an emergency security team from Tripoli, the capital, and chartered aircraft that ultimately carried surviving American personnel to safety, U.S. officials said. “There was no second-guessing those decisions being made on the ground, by people at every U.S. organization that could play a role in assisting those in danger,” a senior U.S. intelligence official said in a prepared statement that summarized the chronology of the attack and was made available to news organizations.> if true, this would make it clear why they may have told former seal team members to stand down - if the cia was working on a rescue attempt, sending in ex-seal members would only add to the confusion and possibly lead to friendly fire deaths. now, we have no certainty that this story is true, but it makes sense - certainly it makes more sense than 'obama left them to die, but we do not know why.' i notice no one has yet answered the question i have asked three times now, which is, why would the administration not launch a rescue attempt if they felt it had any reasonable chance of success? well... it appears they did indeed launch a rescue attempt. |
|||||||
|
z It is certainly possible that my information is incomplete or inaccurate... I'm still waiting for the Presidents' new conference where he explains things and answers questions, rather than just give a statement and disappear. There are some "holes" in that story now presented that need to be filled in. For example, if the rescue attempt was at the compound 25 minutes after the attack began, why did that occupation last so long and how could the attackers leave and then come back to attack again hours later? More questions that need to be answered. In any event, we have four dead Americans including an Ambassador, a destroyed consulate, lost secret and confidential papers... seemingly because security questions were ignored or turned down. We have a rescue attempt (indeed if there was one) that did no good. And we have an administration that lied to the world for two weeks about the story. I'm thinking there will be no press conference until sometime after the election, right? |
|||||||
|
yes, there are questions about why security was not enhanced before the incident. other than that, i do not see much that needs a press conference. as for the failed rescue attempt, i think that was addressed. read the statement. it was pretty clear about that. |
|||||||
|
More... ********************************************************************* CBS News reports that a key security task force was NOT convened when Americans were under attack in Libya. 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. One counterterrorism official told CBS News that the FBI did receive a call from the office of Secretary of State requesting that 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. Fox News has learned that the diplomats in Benghazi held an "emergency meeting" only weeks before the attack, "because Al Qaeda had training camps in Benghazi and the consulate could not defend against a 'coordinated attack.'" www.gopusa.com |
|||||||
|
softy "...One counterterrorism official told CBS News that the FBI did receive a call from the office of Secretary of State requesting that 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..." How soon do you think this group could have got there? "...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..." What group, and where were they based? "...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..." This one is a real no brainer: Stuttgart, Germany, working on a course of action (fail)? It was all over before this group could have been halfway there. The reports were that initial hostilities had ceased, then started up again some hours later for eleven minutes (before the heavily armed Libyan brigade came on the scene). ...........AFICOM? Who wrote this stuff? If anything really stinks here it isn't what anyone from the US did or did not do, except perhaps not beefing up security prior to these events as has been indicated in several places. For that perhaps someone should carry responsibility. I have no doubt whatsoever that you will say Obama has that responsibility. All I can offer to that is that no President works without military and security advisers, who are supposed to know their job. Haven't all US President's have been civilians (at the time of their Presidency), yes? |
|||||||
|
change look. he whines and snivels for the white house to make an explanation. they do so. but nothing can be good enough for someone who has already made up his mind. |
|||||||
|
What explanation? |
|||||||
|
softy <"The CIA rushed security operatives to an American diplomatic compound in Libya within 25 minutes after it had come under attack and played a more central role in the effort to fend off a night-long siege than has been acknowledged publicly, U.S. intelligence officials said Thursday. The agency mobilized the evacuation effort, took control of an unarmed U.S. military drone to map possible escape routes, dispatched an emergency security team from Tripoli, the capital, and chartered aircraft that ultimately carried surviving American personnel to safety, U.S. officials said. “There was no second-guessing those decisions being made on the ground, by people at every U.S. organization that could play a role in assisting those in danger,” a senior U.S. intelligence official said in a prepared statement that summarized the chronology of the attack and was made available to news organizations.> |
|||||||
|
By David Ignatius A detailed CIA timeline of the assault on U.S. facilities in Benghazi paints an anguishing picture of embattled Americans waiting for Libyan security forces who didn’t come and courageous CIA officers who died on a rooftop without the heavy weapons they needed, trying to protect their colleagues below. It’s a story of individual bravery, but also of a CIA misjudgment in relying on Libyan militias and a newly formed Libyan intelligence organization to keep Americans safe in Benghazi. While there were multiple errors that led to the final tragedy, there’s no evidence that the White House or CIA leadership deliberately delayed or impeded rescue efforts. The CIA is now reviewing its security plans around the world to make sure the agency isn’t relying on shaky local forces. This is a difficult task because the United States has vulnerable arrangements in dozens of places. The CIA timeline was described to me Thursday by a senior intelligence official. The narrative of events is dramatic and disturbing. Rather than try to parse each detail, let’s look at a summary of the highlights. The times listed are Benghazi time on the night of Sept. 11 and the morning of Sept. 12: ●9:40 p.m.: A senior State Department security officer at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi called the CIA base, at an annex about a mile away, and requested assistance: “The compound is under attack. People are moving through the gates.” CIA officers at the base can hear the alarm, and a team immediately begins gathering weapons and preparing to leave. ●10:04 p.m.: A six-person rescue squad from the agency’s Global Response Staff (GRS) leaves in two vehicles. The team leader is a career CIA officer; the team includes a contractor named Tyrone Woods, who later died. During the previous 24-minute interval, the CIA base chief calls the February 17 Brigade, other militias and the Libyan intelligence service seeking vehicles with .50-caliber machine guns. Nobody responds. The team leader and the base chief agree at 10:04 that they can’t wait any longer, and the squad heads for the consulate. The senior intelligence official said that he doesn’t know whether Woods or any of the other team members agitated to go sooner but added that he wouldn’t be surprised. “I want them to have a sense of urgency,” he said. ●10:10 p.m.: The rescue team reached a chaotic intersection a few blocks from the consulate. Militias gathered there have several .50-caliber machine guns, which the CIA team tries unsuccessfully to commandeer; three militiamen offer to help. The rescue party now includes 10 people: six GRS officers, a CIA translator and the three Libyan volunteers. ●10:20 p.m.: A reconnaissance party of two GRS officers heads to the consulate; at 10:25, three more GRS officers enter the main gate and begin engaging the attackers. The firefight lasts about 15 minutes. ●10:40 p.m.: Members of the CIA team enter the burning inferno of “Villa C,” where Ambassador Christopher Stevens is believed to be hiding. CIA officers try numerous times to reach the “safe room” but are driven back by the intense smoke and fire. Small-arms fire continues from the Libyan attackers. ●11:11 p.m.: An unarmed military Predator drone arrives over the compound to provide aerial reconnaissance. The drone had been diverted from a mission over Darnah, about 90 minutes away. But without weapons, it can’t help much. ●11:15 p.m.: The CIA team puts a group of State Department officers into a vehicle and sends it to the agency base; at 11:30, the CIA officers depart under fire and reach the annex six minutes later. ●11:56 p.m.: CIA officers at the annex are attacked by a rocket-propelled grenade and small arms. Sporadic attacks continue for about another hour. The attacks stop at 1:01 a.m., and some assume the fight is over. ●1:15 a.m.: CIA reinforcements arrive on a 45-minute flight from Tripoli in a plane they’ve hastily chartered. The Tripoli team includes four GRS security officers, a CIA case officer and two U.S. military personnel on loan to the agency. They don’t leave the Benghazi airport until 4:30 a.m. The delay is caused by negotiations with Libyan authorities over permission to leave the airport; obtaining vehicles; and the need to frame a clear mission plan. The first idea is to go to a Benghazi hospital to recover Stevens, who they rightly suspect is already dead. (Also killed was a State Department communication specialist.) But the hospital is surrounded by the al-Qaeda-linked Ansar al-Sharia militia that mounted the consulate attack. ●5:04 a.m.: The team from Tripoli arrives at the CIA base. Glen Doherty, one of the GRS men from Tripoli, goes to the roof and joins Woods in firing positions. ●5:15 a.m.: A new Libyan assault begins, this time with mortars. Two rounds miss and the next three hit the roof. The rooftop defenders never “laser the mortars,” as has been reported. They don’t know the weapons are in place until the indirect fire begins, nor are the mortars observed by the drone overhead. The defenders have focused their laser sights earlier on several Libyan attackers, as warnings not to fire. At 5:26 the attack is over. Woods and Doherty are dead and two others are wounded. ●6 a.m.: Libyan forces from the military intelligence service finally arrive, now with 50 vehicles. They escort the Americans to the airport. A first group of 18, including two wounded, depart at 7 a.m. A second group of 12, plus the four dead, leave at 10 a.m. for Tripoli and then the long flight back to America. |
|||||||
|
and now i have no answer, other than there are issues at play we know nothing about. we do not know what actions are being taken that could be jeopardized by releasing information at the wrong time. maybe they were just trying to cover it up, although i cannot see how they are so dumb as to think it could be covered up. i tend to believe there is more to it than we will ever know. because we are not privy to state secrets and diplomatic negotiations - as it should be. i do not understand why so many people think it is the government's job or responsibility to tell us the whole truth all the time. diplomacy does not work that way. i support transparency in domestic issues. but i am not pollyanna-ish enough to expect, as softy does, that the government is at liberty to explain all of its military and diplomatic actions to the hoi polloi in real time. |
|||||||
|
"The information does not address the main source of political controversy surrounding the siege: the shifting assessments offered by Obama administration officials over whether the assault was a protest that turned violent or a planned terrorist attack." (what makes you so confident that article is accurate and previous ones are not?) And, from what you just posted: "While there were multiple errors that led to the final tragedy, there’s no evidence that the White House or CIA leadership deliberately delayed or impeded rescue efforts. " except there was a cover up to hide the fact that they had denied security when it was requested, that they knew in advance the attack was coming (those in Benghazi did anyway), that they actually withdrew the original security team... and then told the world (for two weeks) that all this was caused by a video. |
|||||||
|
softy 1) they did nothing to try to save the victims. the new information seems to indicate that this is not the case. 2) that they lied to us about the video. i am not quite as convinced as you are that it was intentional lying. you could be right. but even if you are, that means little. they could have very good reasons for not broadcasting to the entire world what they knew. this is where you seem crazy. i do not understand why you think the govt. has the responsibility to broadcast everything they know in real time. that is stupid. they cannot and should not. you act like you know what is going on in diplomatic circles. you don't. do you fail to understand that it is not in our best interest to know everything immediately? if we know, so does the entire world. for me, i would rather wait to hear the truth than have the chance of messing up missions, whether military, diplomatic, investigative, retribution or what have you. 3) the cover up about denied security. yes. that is troubling. and an investigation should be done. great. so now that that is settled, can we move on? |
|||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
jd |
|||||||
|
in a time of universal deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act . . . but . . . who's telling the truth?! |
|||||||
|
exactly expecting perfection is silly. name the last president who did not engage in several cover-uos or scandals. hah! but i do not expect the president to get us into a war under false premises. to ignore science. to prioritize profits over people. to decrease regulations on industry and corporations while increasing it on women. |
|||||||
|
z And then lied about why it happen. It's no big deal the administration was lying about all that and told the world that this "incident" was caused by a video that nobody saw? (not our fault... fault of a video) Will it still be no big deal when the SAC, our missile defense system, or the border patrol are told to stand down and then a suitcase nuke goes off in Los Angeles? This event shows that the administration is completely incompetent, completely ignorant of how systems and the military work, or worse.... |
|||||||
|
softy look at this stark insanity you spout! <This event shows that the administration iscompletely incompetent, completely ignorant of how systems and the military work, or worse.... > no it doesn't! are you daft? in four years, look at what our military has done, and how few attacks have been perpetrated on us. any fair minded observer would say this administration has kept us safe. but not you. 4 people killed and a systems breakdown and they are, what was it you said? oh yeah... "completely incompetent, completely ignorant of how systems and the military work," "or worse." meaning what. they are traitors? you are completely unhinged. |
|||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
this is interesting Petraeus’s Quieter Style at C.I.A. Leaves Void on Libya Furor By SCOTT SHANE WASHINGTON — In 14 months as C.I.A. director, David H. Petraeus has shunned the spotlight he once courted as America’s most famous general. His low-profile style has won the loyalty of the White House, easing old tensions with President Obama, and he has overcome some of the skepticism he faced from the agency’s work force, which is always wary of the military brass. But since an attack killed four Americans seven weeks ago in Benghazi, Libya, his deliberately low profile, and the C.I.A.’s penchant for secrecy, have left a void that has been filled by a news media and Congressional furor over whether it could have been prevented. Rather than acknowledge the C.I.A.’s presence in Benghazi, Mr. Petraeus and other agency officials fought a losing battle to keep it secret, even as the events there became a point of contention in the presidential campaign. Finally, on Thursday, with Mr. Petraeus away on a visit to the Middle East, pressure from critics prompted intelligence officials to give their own account of the chaotic night when two security officers died along with the American ambassador, J. Christopher Stevens, and another diplomat. The officials acknowledged for the first time that the security officers, both former members of the Navy SEALs, worked on contract for the C.I.A., which occupied one of the buildings that were attacked. The Benghazi crisis is the biggest challenge so far in the first civilian job held by Mr. Petraeus, who retired from the Army and dropped the “General” when he went to the C.I.A. He gets mostly high marks from government colleagues and outside experts for his overall performance. But the transition has meant learning a markedly different culture, at an agency famously resistant to outsiders. “I think he’s a brilliant man, but he’s also a four-star general,” said Senator Dianne Feinstein, the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. “Four-stars are saluted, not questioned. He’s now running an agency where everything is questioned, whether you’re a four-star or a senator. It’s a culture change.” Mr. Petraeus, who turns 60 next week, has had to learn that C.I.A. officers will not automatically defer to his judgments, as military subordinates often did. “The attitude at the agency is, ‘You may be the director, but I’m the Thailand analyst,’ ” said one C.I.A. veteran. Long a media star as the most prominent military leader of his generation, Mr. Petraeus abruptly abandoned that style at the C.I.A. Operating amid widespread complaints about leaks of classified information, he has stopped giving interviews, speaks to Congress in closed sessions and travels the globe to consult with foreign spy services with little news media notice. “He thinks he has to be very discreet and let others in the government do the talking,” said Michael E. O’Hanlon, a Brookings Institution scholar who is a friend of Mr. Petraeus’s and a member of the C.I.A.’s advisory board. Mr. Petraeus’s no-news, no-nonsense style stands out especially starkly against that of his effusive predecessor, Leon E. Panetta, who is now the defense secretary. Mr. Panetta, a gregarious politician by profession, was unusually open with Congress and sometimes with the public — to a fault, some might say, when he spoke candidly after leaving the C.I.A. about a Pakistani doctor’s role in helping hunt for Osama bin Laden, or about the agency’s drone operations. Mr. Petraeus’s discretion and relentless work ethic have had a positive side for him: old tensions with Mr. Obama, which grew out of differing views on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, appear to be gone. Mr. Petraeus is at the White House several times a week, attending National Security Council sessions and meeting weekly with James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, and Thomas E. Donilon, Mr. Obama’s national security adviser. Mr. Donilon said recently that the C.I.A. director “has done an exceptional job,” bringing “deep experience, intellectual rigor and enthusiasm” to his work. “When Obama came into office, they were very suspicious of one another,” said Bruce Riedel, a former C.I.A. officer and presidential adviser. “Clearly, over the course of the last four years, Obama has come to trust Petraeus.” Mr. Petraeus has managed the delicate task of supporting rebels in Syria’s civil war while trying to prevent the arming of anti-American extremists. But when his C-17 Globemaster touched down in Turkey in September for consultations on Syria, the trip went all but unnoticed by the news media. He worked for months to address the complaints of Pakistani officials about drone strikes against militants, while keeping State Department officials abreast of likely future strikes, a policy called “pre-concurrence” that has prevented interagency squabbles. In his travels to the tumultuous post-Arab Spring Middle East this week, only a brief mention of his arrival in Cairo surfaced in local news reports. Inside the agency, some subordinates say, he has largely defused the skepticism that initially greeted a celebrity general whose stated views of progress in the war in Afghanistan, among other things, were far rosier than those of C.I.A. analysts. But by comparison with Mr. Panetta, who wooed the work force and often did not question operational details, Mr. Petraeus is a demanding boss who does not hesitate to order substandard work redone or details of plans adjusted. “I’ve never seen anyone with his drive — ever,” said Michael J. Morell, the agency’s deputy director. “He remembers what he asks for. Three weeks later he’ll say at a morning meeting: ‘Whatever happened to that? Is that done yet?’ ” But the Benghazi crisis has posed an extraordinary test for Mr. Petraeus. After the killings, intelligence officials concerned about exposing the extent and methods of the large C.I.A. presence in the city would say little to reporters for publication. Conservative critics of Mr. Obama seized on a series of reports by Fox News and other outlets to make the incendiary charge shortly before the election that four Americans had died because of the administration’s negligence. Mr. Petraeus said nothing publicly, but that did not keep him out of the story. Some news reports faulted his secret testimony to Congress days after the attack for supposedly supporting the view that it was not a planned strike but a spontaneous response to an offensive anti-Muslim video. Then, last week, Fox News reported that agency officials had refused desperate requests for help from operatives under fire in Libya, and the agency issued a flat denial. “No one at any level in the C.I.A. told anybody not to help those in need,” its statement said. Far from ending the speculation, the statement added to it. William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard, concluded that the agency was pointing its finger at the White House, which he suggested must have refused the requested intervention. “Petraeus Throws Obama Under the Bus” was the headline on the Weekly Standard’s blog. Perhaps worse for a former military commander like Mr. Petraeus, the father of Tyrone S. Woods, one of the security officers killed, accused the Obama administration in interviews of essentially abandoning his son and others to their fate and not caring about their deaths. The Wall Street Journal reported Friday that some agency employees resented the fact that Mr. Petraeus did not attend the funerals of the two security contractors. Officials said he was concerned that his presence would confirm their agency connection, still officially secret at the time. On Thursday, hoping to subdue the gathering public relations storm, intelligence officials invited reporters to a background briefing to, in their view, set the record straight. They offered a timeline of C.I.A. actions on the night of the attack, countering the idea that the besieged Americans were left alone under fire, and explaining why some would-be rescue efforts discussed in news reports were never feasible. Notably, they also sought to rehabilitate Mr. Petraeus from some of the negative speculation that has surrounded him. The C.I.A. director, said one intelligence official, “has been fully engaged from the start of the agency’s response, particularly in the rescue mission that was swift and aggressive.” “This idea that he is somehow not engaged is baseless,” the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity. For Mr. Petraeus — once pilloried in full-page newspaper ads as “General Betray Us” in the debate over the Iraq war — it is nothing new to be at the center of a political firestorm. “This is Washington, so naturally all controversies get caught up in the political jet stream,” an intelligence officer close to Mr. Petraeus said. Whatever the challenges of his first year, said Mr. O’Hanlon, his friend, “I’m confident in saying that he loves this job.” “He may miss the military at an emotional level,” he added, “but he loves this work.” Mr. Petraeus’s future has inevitably been the subject of rumors: that he would be Mitt Romney’s running mate, or, more plausibly, that he was interested in the presidency of Princeton. In a statement in late September, he did not rule that out for the future, but said that for the time being he was “living the dream here at C.I.A.” That was before the recriminations this week over Benghazi. |
|||||||
|
z I can't name one that hasn't had some type of scandal, mistake, or stupid problems. That may be why I am so anti-big government. The less government, the better. (With that in mind why do you want more government control of our lives?) My problem is that THIS administration has done almost everything wrong and against things I think should have been done. THIS administration has done things so poorly, so ineptly, or so anti-American (imho) that I have tried to point out what they are. I am just more vocal about THIS administration than the others because I think THIS administration has done so much more damage than other administrations. Don't take it personally... I just don't like what THIS administration has done much more than what other administrations did. THIS administration has been far more damaging than others, but that does not mean others have been too good or beneficial either. |
|||||||
|
softy what did obama do that was worse than getting us into a war that was unnecessary, illegal, and wrong and cost 5000 american lives and untold numbers of iraqis? and allowed 9/11 on his watch. and allowed the complete collapse of the economy? and passed the patriot act? |
|||||||
| ||||||||
Log in 
