McCain and Graham got Rice wrong

[Max Rockatansky]

Interesting admission on the part of McCain and Graham:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/12/30/mccain-graham-rice-benghazi-libya-column/4241833/

John McCain, R-Ariz., and Lindsey Graham's, R-S.C., first act upon returning to Washington after the holiday recess should be to call a press conference and apologize to Susan Rice.

The two Senators led an ugly Republican and conservative media mob against the former UN Ambassador and current national security advisor, claiming she lied to the American people while appearing on Sunday morning political talk shows in the wake of the attacks on American facilities in Benghazi, Libya. Ultimately they were able to gin up enough opposition to prevent Rice from being appointed secretary of State.


McCain told CNN in November of last year, "everybody knew that it was an Al Qaeda attack, and she continued to tell the world through all of the talk shows that it was a 'spontaneous demonstration' sparked by a video." He continued, "That is not competence in my view. I think she should have known. She has never yet at this point declared that she was wrong."


It turns out McCain was wrong. On Sunday, The New York Times reported that "contrary to claims by some members of Congress, [the Benghazi attack] was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam."


Furthermore, the Times could not find "evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault." In fact "Republican arguments appear to conflate purely local extremist organizations like Ansar al-Shariah with Al Qaeda's international terrorist network." The only intelligence linking the Benghazi attack to the terrorist group was a phone call from an attacker to "a friend" in Africa bragging about his horrific exploits.


The Times' reporting makes it clear that when Lindsey Graham claimed at a press conference that Susan Rice was "disconnected to reality" or when John McCain told Charlie Rose that Rice, a Rhodes Scholar, was "not very bright," they were speaking without full command of the facts. These ugly attacks were designed to tarnish the reputation of a distinguished public servant in order to score some political points for Republicans.


What's shocking about the Times story is not that it laid bare core conservative myths about the attack in Benghazi – its that after 15 months, more than a dozen Congressional hearings, scores of witness interviews and tens of thousands of pages of documents produced, no Republican investigation has delivered a report as comprehensive as David Kirkpatrick's work in The New York Times.

[jillian]

i think it'll be a while before that apology to both rice and the administration is forthcoming.

[zelmo1234]

So does this mean that we are back to saying that Benghazi is about the video again???? :)

[Max Rockatansky]

So does this mean that we are back to saying that Benghazi is about the video again???? :)

I think what the evidence is showing that the video lit a fuse on a bomb that was already there.

[Peter1469]

This just goes to show you how much McCain and Graham are much more interested in being liked (even by the MSM) than in being right. The New York Times article was a classic example of cherry picking facts in order to revise history; in this case to rehabilitate Hillary Clinton for 2016.

That won't work in this instance. There is plenty of eyewitness testimony that conflicts with the Times' carefully cherry picked data. For example, the "horrible" Youtube video wasn't translated into Arabic until the 12th of September.

Additionally, the attackers had more than the ubiquitous AK-47 (variants)- they had light, medium, and heavy machine guns and at least two mortar tubes. We all know that those crazy Arabs take their protests seriously, but come on, they don't show up to protests with heavy weapons. Also, the compound was under surveillance ahead of time and the area cordoned off by militants prior to the attack. Again, not something seen in protests.

The Times' shrewdly plays on the ignorance of the American people by stating that al Qaeda was not involved. While technically true, it is de facto false. The American people and most of the media (uninformed) use the term al Qaeda loosely. In reality, al Qaeda is a small core group of militants that are largely dispersed and hiding from US drones and SoF forces. "Core" al Qaeda has largely been decimated since 9-11 and no longer has the ability to plan or carry out complicated attacks or overseas attacks. However, there are numerous other Islamist terrorist groups that are affiliated with al Qaeda. The degree of affiliation ranges from swearing loyalty to al Qaeda to deferring to al Qaeda, to just riding al Qaeda's coat tails. In fact, the al Qaeda affiliates in Yemen (Ansar al-Sharia), in the Maghreb (al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb), and in Syria (numerous but including the Islamic Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) are the new Islamist terrorist operations that the West is concerned about, not al Qaeda Prime. Both Ansar al-Sharia and al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb are believed to have taken part in the attack. Of course that doesn't rule out that the Islamists didn't find some bored Libyans to tag along and protest whatever they were paid to protest- and to climb the gates first to catch the DSS bullets.

This institutional cover up of the Benghazi attacks is another indication that the news media in the United States is dead. It is largely a propaganda arm of the DNC.

[Peter1469]

So does this mean that we are back to saying that Benghazi is about the video again???? :)

No, just the media and those trying to rehab Hillary for 2016.

[jillian]

I think what the evidence is showing that the video lit a fuse on a bomb that was already there.

which is what they said all along, really….

[jillian]

This just goes to show you how much McCain and Graham are much more interested in being liked (even by the MSM) than in being right. The New York Times article was a classic example of cherry picking facts in order to revise history; in this case to rehabilitate Hillary Clinton for 2016.

no. it's an example of actual journalism. something that the benghaaaaaaaaaaaaazazzzzzzzzzzzzzzzi shriekers seem not to have understood from day one.

[Max Rockatansky]

which is what they said all along, really….

Well, it did seem like there was more emphasis on the video as a causal factor rather than as a trigger.

[Peter1469]

no. it's an example of actual journalism. something that the benghaaaaaaaaaaaaazazzzzzzzzzzzzzzzi shriekers seem not to have understood from day one.

Incorrect my rabbit loving friend. See my longer post.

[Max Rockatansky]

This just goes to show you how much McCain and Graham are much more interested in being liked (even by the MSM) than in being right. The New York Times article was a classic example of cherry picking facts in order to revise history; in this case to rehabilitate Hillary Clinton for 2016.

Regardless of what triggered the attack, the fact remains the Department of State left a U.S. ambassador hanging out to dry in a very unstable situation. It shouldn't take a great deal of thought to think there were elements in Libya (and elsewhere in the Middle East) that were waiting to attack Americans. So why was Ambassador Stevens left out there with a handful of guards?

[Peter1469]

That is a good question. He did meet with a Turkish "diplomat" (really an intel agent with diplomatic cover) for dinner that evening. When the Turk left the militants who cordoned off the consulate left him through the road block unmolested.

We do have indications that the US was shipping arms to the Syrian rebels through Turkey.

Another important question is why was the military ordered to stand down- carrier based jets could have be on target before the CIA annex was targeted and likely would have scattered the attackers. A quick reaction force from Tripoli, also could have gotten there much earlier- two of them refused orders and did get there either just before or after the Ambassador was murdered.

There are a lot of wild conspiracy theories about the attack, but the simplest is that the Administration didn't want lots of dead Islamists just prior to an election where one of the main talking points was that Obama had al Qaeda on the ropes. It wouldn't support the talking points.


Regardless of what triggered the attack, the fact remains the Department of State left a U.S. ambassador hanging out to dry in a very unstable situation. It shouldn't take a great deal of thought to think there were elements in Libya (and elsewhere in the Middle East) that were waiting to attack Americans. So why was Ambassador Stevens left out there with a handful of guards?

[jillian]

Regardless of what triggered the attack, the fact remains the Department of State left a U.S. ambassador hanging out to dry in a very unstable situation. It shouldn't take a great deal of thought to think there were elements in Libya (and elsewhere in the Middle East) that were waiting to attack Americans. So why was Ambassador Stevens left out there with a handful of guards?

the ambassador in question knew he was in an unstable place.

did the 50 people killed in bush's 13 banghazis?

[keymanjim]

What Youtube video triggered the attack on the British Ambassador (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/06/2012611152127356825.html) in the same city? Or the Red Cross building? Benghazi was a hot bed of terrorist activity. Hell, they even had a terrorist convention in Benghazi (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/16/us-usa-libya-alqaeda-idUSBRE89F1SL20121016) a few months before the 9/11 attack.
This video wasn't a trigger. All the signs for an attack were right there in front of them. (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/benghazi-timeline-how-the-attack-unfolded/) And, they ignored them.

[undine]

Interesting admission on the part of McCain and Graham:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/12/30/mccain-graham-rice-benghazi-libya-column/4241833/
Thank goodness for reporters. I am still mystified why anyone wouldn't think the video was partly responsible as extremists use these types of thing as an excuse to attack on a regular basis.

[Max Rockatansky]

the ambassador in question knew he was in an unstable place.

Agreed. Are you stating that the Secretary of State did not know?

[jillian]

Agreed. Are you stating that the Secretary of State did not know?

no. it's more a comment on the politicization of this particular attack by partisans who ignored the 13 attacks and 50 dead during the previous administration.

[Max Rockatansky]

Thank goodness for reporters. I am still mystified why anyone wouldn't think the video was partly responsible as extremists use these types of thing as an excuse to attack on a regular basis.

The video wasn't responsible. The terrorists were responsible. The video was just an excuse. Osama bin Laden used the excuse of the US presence in the Persian Gulf for the 9/11 attack. That doesn't mean the US is responsible for the murder of thousands of Americans. OBL is responsible for that attack. US interests in the Middle East was just an excuse.

[keymanjim]

no. it's more a comment on the politicization of this particular attack by partisans who ignored the 13 attacks and 50 dead during the previous administration.
What 13 Youtube videos did the Bush Administration blame those attacks on.
The answer is NONE. Get over it. Your attempt to shift blame has failed. There will be no president hillery.

[jillian]

What 13 Youtube videos did the Bush Administration blame those attacks on.
The answer is NONE. Get over it. Your attempt to shift blame has failed. There will be no president hillery.

Benghaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaazzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzziiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii!!!

thanks. i rest my case.

[Peter1469]

the ambassador in question knew he was in an unstable place.

did the 50 people killed in bush's 13 banghazis?

Bush didn't have any Benghazis - that was the first US Ambassador killed in the line of duty since 1979. And those embassy attacks were not white washed under Bush for political gain.

[Max Rockatansky]

no. it's more a comment on the politicization of this particular attack by partisans who ignored the 13 attacks and 50 dead during the previous administration.

The high level of partisan politics in Washington DC is a big turnoff to American voters and another reason why more Americans are becoming Independents.

Your comments about previous attacks are true, but they do not negate the responsibilities of Secretary Clinton in this matter.

I'm sick and tired of the "They're doing it too!" excuse for incompetence, negligence and outright abuse of power.

[zelmo1234]

the ambassador in question knew he was in an unstable place.

did the 50 people killed in bush's 13 banghazis?

And yet there was NO cover-up under Bush and that makes all the difference!

[zelmo1234]

no. it's more a comment on the politicization of this particular attack by partisans who ignored the 13 attacks and 50 dead during the previous administration.

Please show me where the Bush administration refused requests for additional security and told military forces to stand down instead of attempt a rescue, and then lied about the reason for the attacks after the fact!

[keymanjim]

Benghaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaazzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzziiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii!!!

thanks. i rest my case.
You never had a case. All you want to do is shift blame.
Read my post above. Click on the links. Your constant bringing up the attacks during the Bush administration is irrelevant.
I don't even know why I bother with you. You aren't even intelligent enough to ask the right questions.

[jillian]

The high level of partisan politics in Washington DC is a big turnoff to American voters and another reason why more Americans are becoming Independents.

Your comments about previous attacks are true, but they do not negate the responsibilities of Secretary Clinton in this matter.

I'm sick and tired of the "They're doing it too!" excuse for incompetence, negligence and outright abuse of power.

the point isn't "they're doing it too". the point is that things happen that can't be prevented. that anyone who actually cares about this country and who isn't a hack doesn't politicize these things.

the "hearings" on Behghazi were nothing but a witch hunt which darryl "hearing a day" issa then used to release bits and pieces of transcript to create misimpression's about what occurred and to intentionally distort the circumstances. i'll also point out that they intentionally made up emails which they then published to the public. the actual emails eventually came out. but i'm pretty sure that none of the Benghazi shriekers has even looked at them. that was all done to both tarnish the president and to do an advance hit on Hillary Clinton who they know kicks the butt of pretty much all potential comers but one… and they hate that "one" because he isn't insane but is pragmatic. i

so i'm not saying "they're doing it too" at all. i'm saying there was never any there there…. and a legitimate house of representatives would have looked at it to see how to prevent such future attacks (something they never bothered to do while 50 people died on bush's watch). but issa and his hacks weren't interested in that.

[zelmo1234]

Benghaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaazzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzziiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii!!!

thanks. i rest my case.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AR3XTOjZPfg

Hell they are only Dead Americans that could have been saved if she would have done her job! What difference does it make!

[jillian]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[undine]

The video wasn't responsible. The terrorists were responsible. The video was just an excuse. Osama bin Laden used the excuse of the US presence in the Persian Gulf for the 9/11 attack. That doesn't mean the US is responsible for the murder of thousands of Americans. OBL is responsible for that attack. US interests in the Middle East was just an excuse.
Yes, I should have used the word excuse.

[Peter1469]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AR3XTOjZPfg

Hell they are only Dead Americans that could have been saved if she would have done her job! What difference does it make!

If a republican said this in front of Congress the media would have burned her at the stake.

[keymanjim]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
^^^ battle cry of the obama sycophant.^^^

[Max Rockatansky]

Yes, I should have used the word excuse.

No worries and welcome to the fun. Happy New Year!

[Max Rockatansky]

If a republican said this in front of Congress the media would have burned her at the stake.

Perhaps, but it's another reason why Hillary won't be a viable candidate for President.

[Max Rockatansky]

the point isn't "they're doing it too". the point is that things happen that can't be prevented. that anyone who actually cares about this country and who isn't a hack doesn't politicize these things.

Disagreed. Such things can be prevented. Not always, but often. What can't be prevented can be mitigated. By your own admission, Ambassador Stevens knew the situation was unstable. Unless you think Secretary Clinton was incompetent in her job, then she knew too. If so, what steps do you think should have been taken by Ambassador Stevens and, if not him, then the Department of State? Tell the Ambassador not to go to Benghazi? Increase military support for the Ambassador if he did go?

[Mainecoons]

You don't think she'll actually read the facts, do you? All she needs is for an Obama Water Carrier to publish some propaganda that was dismantled in minutes and she is happy. No doubt her next proof will be something from MSNBC.

:rofl:

[Max Rockatansky]

You don't think she'll actually read the facts, do you? All she needs is for an Obama Water Carrier to publish some propaganda that was dismantled in minutes and she is happy. No doubt her next proof will be something from MSNBC.

:rofl:

She can say whatever she wants, but she is smart enough to know she'd be called on it for the facts of the matter. The main problem with both Parties is a lack of credibility for almost two decades of excessive exaggeration. If the RNC would just stick to the facts, they'd not only gain credibility for themselves, but have the chance to see the former Secretary of State dance like a go-go girl.

http://www.glitterglobe.com/glitter-graphics/animations/13.gif

[Mini Me]

This just goes to show you how much McCain and Graham are much more interested in being liked (even by the MSM) than in being right. The New York Times article was a classic example of cherry picking facts in order to revise history; in this case to rehabilitate Hillary Clinton for 2016.

That won't work in this instance. There is plenty of eyewitness testimony that conflicts with the Times' carefully cherry picked data. For example, the "horrible" Youtube video wasn't translated into Arabic until the 12th of September.

Additionally, the attackers had more than the ubiquitous AK-47 (variants)- they had light, medium, and heavy machine guns and at least two mortar tubes. We all know that those crazy Arabs take their protests seriously, but come on, they don't show up to protests with heavy weapons. Also, the compound was under surveillance ahead of time and the area cordoned off by militants prior to the attack. Again, not something seen in protests.

The Times' shrewdly plays on the ignorance of the American people by stating that al Qaeda was not involved. While technically true, it is de facto false. The American people and most of the media (uninformed) use the term al Qaeda loosely. In reality, al Qaeda is a small core group of militants that are largely dispersed and hiding from US drones and SoF forces. "Core" al Qaeda has largely been decimated since 9-11 and no longer has the ability to plan or carry out complicated attacks or overseas attacks. However, there are numerous other Islamist terrorist groups that are affiliated with al Qaeda. The degree of affiliation ranges from swearing loyalty to al Qaeda to deferring to al Qaeda, to just riding al Qaeda's coat tails. In fact, the al Qaeda affiliates in Yemen (Ansar al-Sharia), in the Maghreb (al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb), and in Syria (numerous but including the Islamic Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) are the new Islamist terrorist operations that the West is concerned about, not al Qaeda Prime. Both Ansar al-Sharia and al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb are believed to have taken part in the attack. Of course that doesn't rule out that the Islamists didn't find some bored Libyans to tag along and protest whatever they were paid to protest- and to climb the gates first to catch the DSS bullets.

This institutional cover up of the Benghazi attacks is another indication that the news media in the United States is dead. It is largely a propaganda arm of the DNC.

"What difference does it make?"

Its all a vast, right wing conspiracy!

[Mini Me]

No, just the media and those trying to rehab Hillary for 2016.

You nailed it, my friend!

True liberals should go for Liz Warren. Hillary is a Bilderberger shit sandwich!

Better yet, a 3hd party ticket of Jesse Ventura, and Liz Warren!

Dump the Duhmocraps and Rethuglicans!

[Mister D]

The high level of partisan politics in Washington DC is a big turnoff to American voters and another reason why more Americans are becoming Independents.

Your comments about previous attacks are true, but they do not negate the responsibilities of Secretary Clinton in this matter.

I'm sick and tired of the "They're doing it too!" excuse for incompetence, negligence and outright abuse of power.

It's called tu quoque and it's commonly employed o this forum.

[Max Rockatansky]

It's called tu quoque and it's commonly employed o this forum.

True. What is also true is that anytime someone does it, all those on this forum who support Truth, Justice and the American Way, regardless of political ideology, should call them on it.

[Cigar]

i think it'll be a while before that apology to both rice and the administration is forthcoming.

Personally I think they like Eating Shit. :laugh:

[nathanbforrest45]

If a republican said this in front of Congress the media would have burned her at the stake.


And then they would accuse the Republicans of air pollution

[nathanbforrest45]

Actually, I totally believe this was a spontaneous riot caused by a little known video by a even lesser known clergyman seen by a small number people. I believe that completely. Just as I believe it was "students" responsible for the hijacking of the American Embassy in Tehran and a rogue unit of the NSA who is monitoring our every phone call, and an even roguer unit in the IRS that went after the Tea Party. I also believe that President Obama knew none of this and was done completely behind his back.

Yes, I believe all this to be true.

[nathanbforrest45]

She can say whatever she wants, but she is smart enough to know she'd be called on it for the facts of the matter. The main problem with both Parties is a lack of credibility for almost two decades of excessive exaggeration. If the RNC would just stick to the facts, they'd not only gain credibility for themselves, but have the chance to see the former Secretary of State dance like a go-go girl.

http://www.glitterglobe.com/glitter-graphics/animations/13.gif

Now that is an image I will need to go into therapy to erase.

[undine]

Disagreed. Such things can be prevented. Not always, but often. What can't be prevented can be mitigated. By your own admission, Ambassador Stevens knew the situation was unstable. Unless you think Secretary Clinton was incompetent in her job, then she knew too. If so, what steps do you think should have been taken by Ambassador Stevens and, if not him, then the Department of State? Tell the Ambassador not to go to Benghazi? Increase military support for the Ambassador if he did go?
Most ambassador jobs in the ME are unstable. Should we have a small army to protect them? Probably. Do the majority of congresscritters want to spend the money? Probably not.

[Cigar]

She can say whatever she wants, but she is smart enough to know she'd be called on it for the facts of the matter. The main problem with both Parties is a lack of credibility for almost two decades of excessive exaggeration. If the RNC would just stick to the facts, they'd not only gain credibility for themselves, but have the chance to see the former Secretary of State dance like a go-go girl.

http://www.glitterglobe.com/glitter-graphics/animations/13.gif

Dude ... Hillary looks nothing like that or ever could :laugh: but I think I know who she is.

[Max Rockatansky]

Most ambassador jobs in the ME are unstable. Should we have a small army to protect them? Probably. Do the majority of congresscritters want to spend the money? Probably not.

Agreed there is always risk, but there is a big difference between calculated risk and just jumping off a cliff and hoping for the best. Libya, especially Benghazi, was known to have severe security problems. Something was up. If State couldn't get the funding or political support to send Ambassador Stevens there with a small army, then they should have told him to stay in Tripoli.

We've evacuated entire Embassies before and others we've reduced staffing due to security concerns. The bottom line here is that our guys, specifically the Department of State, screwed up and our people died. It's happened before and it will happen again. If it happens in the military there is an investigation and often some people lose their jobs.

The problem here isn't that people screwed up, but that those responsible refuse to admit their responsibilities in these deaths.

Fine. It's not the first time that's happened, but do we really want elect such a person to be President?

[undine]

Agreed there is always risk, but there is a big difference between calculated risk and just jumping off a cliff and hoping for the best. Libya, especially Benghazi, was known to have severe security problems. Something was up. If State couldn't get the funding or political support to send Ambassador Stevens there with a small army, then they should have told him to stay in Tripoli.

We've evacuated entire Embassies before and others we've reduced staffing due to security concerns. The bottom line here is that our guys, specifically the Department of State, screwed up and our people died. It's happened before and it will happen again. If it happens in the military there is an investigation and often some people lose their jobs.

The problem here isn't that people screwed up, but that those responsible refuse to admit their responsibilities in these deaths.

Fine. It's not the first time that's happened, but do we really want elect such a person to be President?
I researched it a little. It was investigated and found that he was offered extra security twice but he said it wasn't needed. At least according to wikipedia.

[texan]

BS they were worried about the/a terrorist attack just before the election, end of story. So they rushed out and used some misdirection.

Jeez get a clue. This "Times" article was proven inaccurate the next day. BTW this drone from the Times contradicts its own newspaper who disagreed in their reporting. In his exhaustive research he didn't get to interview 1/2 the witness's because it is considered an ongoing investigation and both parties agree. Lastly, this is a guy trying to justify his initial incorrect reporting. Like he could have a friggin clue a day or two after. Think about it, he ran with what he was told.

CYA all the way!

[texan]

I just saw more FACTS on this and the NY Times lied out their read on this issue. The stunning the stunning thing is Road Warrior just swallowed it like a fish on a hook.

The group NO DOUBT was tied to al Qaeda. The Pentagon wrote a report on them in August 2012 before the attack. August 2012 "Ansar al-Sharia has increasingly embodied al-Qaedas presence in Libya." It also wasn't spontaneous, the militants were seen casing the place on surveillance tape prior to the attack. They came in with heavy mortars and machine guns with enough ammo to shoot for 2 hours. They hid and sprang into action it wasn't some mob. They simultaneously attacked a CIA compound a few miles away.

Do a little Homework bro, just a little. This is also why the dems and pugs on the investigation agree that this was planned and terrorism. What a horrible dishonest article.

[jillian]

I just saw more FACTS on this and the NY Times lied out their read on this issue. The stunning the stunning thing is Road Warrior just swallowed it like a fish on a hook.

The group NO DOUBT was tied to al Qaeda. The Pentagon wrote a report on them in August 2012 before the attack. August 2012 "Ansar al-Sharia has increasingly embodied al-Qaedas presence in Libya." It also wasn't spontaneous, the militants were seen casing the place on surveillance tape prior to the attack. They came in with heavy mortars and machine guns with enough ammo to shoot for 2 hours.

Do a little Homework bro, just a little. This is also why the dems and pugs on the investigation agree that this was planned and terrorism. What a horrible dishonest article.

where'd you get your "facts" from? the emails doctored by the GOP congressional staffer?

[Peter1469]

where'd you get your "facts" from? the emails doctored by the GOP congressional staffer?

All he needed to do was read my post at #5. :wink:

[texan]

This is not my first post of facts on this issue. However, I posted the Pentagon QUOTES from their report Jillian. If you cut and past it articles dating back to August 2012 with pop up. In the famous lines from Anchorman 2, "how do you win a ratings war?" "Why can't we just tell them what they want to hear?"

Genius and so true.

[Ivan88]

I hear that the Ambassador was deeply involved in bringing "Islamic" terrorists into Libya and getting them good support and supplies.
Maybe, he was going to spill the beans, and somebody arranged a little Dead Men Tell No Tales party for him.

"Stevens was the connection between the Islamist Benghazi rebels and the Obama administration’s illegal war to overthrow Gaddafi. His mission, like the true mission of the war, was secret, and the consulate, marginally fortified and devoid of Marines, reflected that secrecy. Stevens did not think that he had anything to fear from the Islamists because they were his friends."

" Stevens cheerfully described fighters who saw “resistance against coalition forces in Iraq” as “an important act of ‘jihad’” and local businessmen who took pride in the number of suicide bombers who had come out of the area. For years he had walked safely in their company without understanding that he was just as much of a target as a Marine in Baghdad, but without the training, the weapons or the survival skills.

The only reason Christopher Stevens had lasted this long is that the jihadist fighters had known a useful man when they met him. And Stevens proved to be very useful, but his usefulness ended with Gaddafi’s death. "
http://askmarion.wordpress.com/2012/09/17/winston-churchill-once-said-an-appeaser-is-one-who-feeds-a-crocodile-hoping-it-will-eat-him-last/
http://askmarion.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/mccainbenghazicourthouse.jpg?w=582&h=405
Image: Senator John McCain in the terrorist rat nest of Benghazi after marshaling cash, weapons, and political support for militants tied directly to Al Qaeda. McCain’s insistence that the terrorists he helped arm and install into power were “not Al Qaeda” runs contra to the US Army’s own reports which state that Benghazi’s terror brigades officially merged with Al Qaeda in 2007. McCain’s “Libyan patriots” have now killed US Ambassador Stevens with RPG’s most likely procured with cash and logistic networks set up by NATO last year, part of a supranational terror campaign that includes violently subverting Syria – a campaign McCain also supports.

[texan]

Wow.

I have seen few things that are as clear as this one.

[Max Rockatansky]

Am I the only one hearing the Twilight Zone theme?

[Max Rockatansky]

I researched it a little. It was investigated and found that he was offered extra security twice but he said it wasn't needed. At least according to wikipedia.

I seem to recall something about Ambassador Stevens not wanting a military unit following him around because that would upset relations with the Libyans, but I don't know if that was the only security he was offered.

[Professor Peabody]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/10/world/libya-attack-statements/

It's a great read!

[Max Rockatansky]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/10/world/libya-attack-statements/

It's a great read!

Great find!


September 12 -- President Barack Obama

"The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. ... No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation."

September 16 -- Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, on CNN's "State of the Union" with Candy Crowley"

There was a hateful video that was disseminated on the Internet. It had nothing to do with the United States government, and it's one that we find disgusting and reprehensible. It's been offensive to many, many people around the world. That sparked violence in various parts of the world, including violence directed against Western facilities including our embassies and consulates."

On CBS' "Face the Nation," Rice also said that, "We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned."

[Peter1469]

No wonder Hillary got the hell out of town.

[undine]

We still don't really know who was behind the attack and it does look more likely that it was spurred in part by the video.

[Peter1469]

We still don't really know who was behind the attack and it does look more likely that it was spurred in part by the video.

The democrats and republicans on the committee that investigated it would disagree with you 100%.

[Max Rockatansky]

No wonder Hillary got the hell out of town.

....and one of the numerous reasons why she won't be the DNC Presidential nominee.

[Max Rockatansky]

We still don't really know who was behind the attack and it does look more likely that it was spurred in part by the video.

The video may have provided an added trigger but the date, September 11th, was also a trigger. Even so, while it may not have been unusual for Libyans to have rifles and pistols, having mortars and explosives plus the expertise to use them doesn't happen spontaneously.

Is it really surprising to think that some groups would have liked to use the anniversary of 9/11 to attack American installations?

The Benghazi attack wasn't the only one made that night:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11/afghanistan-attacks_n_1874017.html

Afghan insurgents bombarded a U.S. base and destroyed a NATO helicopter, killing three Afghan intelligence employees, officials said Tuesday. There were also NATO personnel aboard and wounded, the coalition said without providing further details.

Separately, a teenage suicide bomber on Tuesday walked into a shop in western Afghanistan and blew himself up, killing five people, Afghan officials said.

The bombing and the strike at Bagram Air Field outside Kabul came as U.S. and its allied military forces marked the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks with a tribute to the more than 3,000 foreign troops killed since the invasion of Afghanistan – including about 2,000 members of the U.S. military.

[undine]

The democrats and republicans on the committee that investigated it would disagree with you 100%.
Did they have definitive conclusions? If so, what were they?

[Cigar]

Personally I hope The Republicans stay stuck on stupid ... it's worked wonders for The Democrats thus far.

[texan]

We still don't really know who was behind the attack and it does look more likely that it was spurred in part by the video.

Man, this hanging onto the video is becoming absurd. I am sure the terrorists were not happy with the video and if you interviewed them they would say they hated the video. But this attack wasn't spur of the moment.

[Peter1469]

Man, this hanging onto the video is becoming absurd. I am sure the terrorists were not happy with the video and if you interviewed them they would say they hated the video. But this attack wasn't spur of the moment.

That people still believe the video story is got to be one of the silliness things in years. Talk about going miles to carry the Administration's water.

[Max Rockatansky]

I'm looking forward to facts disputing this report

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/12/28/benghazi-new-york-times/4232109/

The six-part report (http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi/?hp#/?chapt=0) on the investigation is written by David D. Kirkpatrick and was posted Saturday on the Times' website. It centers on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who, the newspaper says, had direct knowledge of the attack and its context.
"The attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs," the Times concludes.

The newspaper notes that Republicans have argued that the Obama administration was trying to cover up al-Qaeda's alleged role in the attack.
"It was very clear to the individuals on the ground that this was an al-Qaeda-led event," Rep, Mike Rogers, R-Mich., who is chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said last month on Fox News.
"But the Republican arguments appear to conflate purely local extremist organizations like Ansar al-Shariah with Al Qaeda's international terrorist network," the Times report says. "The only intelligence connecting Al Qaeda to the attack was an intercepted phone call that night from a participant in the first wave of the attack to a friend in another African country who had ties to members of Al Qaeda, according to several officials briefed on the call. But when the friend heard the attacker's boasts, he sounded astonished, the officials said, suggesting he had no prior knowledge of the assault."
READ: 'A Deadly Mix in Benghazi' (http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi/?hp#/?chapt=0)
The newspaper says that a fuller account of the Benghazi attacks "suggests lessons for the United States that go well beyond Libya."
"It shows the risks of expecting American aid in a time of desperation to buy durable loyalty, and the difficulty of discerning friends from allies of convenience in a culture shaped by decades of anti-Western sentiment," the Times investigation says. "Both challenges now hang over the American involvement in Syria's civil conflict."
The Times says a central figure in the attack was an eccentric, malcontent local militia leader, Ahmed Abu Khattala. It says U.S. officials briefed on an American criminal investigation into the killings call him a prime suspect.
The report says Abu Khattala had no known affiliations with terrorist groups, and had escaped scrutiny from the 20-person CIA station in Benghazi that was set up to monitor local conditions.
Abu Khattala denied to the newspaper that he participated in the attack, but the newspaper says he was "firmly embedded in the network of Benghazi militias before and afterward."
The Times report on the attack itself says the U.S. compound had been under surveillance at least 12 hours before the assault started.
"The violence, though, also had spontaneous elements," the Times writes. "Anger at the (anti-Islam) video motivated the initial attack."
The video, titled "Innocence of Muslims" was made by an American, but had appeared almost exclusively only online, on YouTube. It had also prompted protests for hours the day before at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.
"Dozens of people (in Benghazi) joined in, some of them provoked by the video and others responding to fast-spreading false rumors that guards inside the American compound had shot Libyan protesters," The Times writes. "Looters and arsonists, without any sign of a plan, were the ones who ravaged the compound after the initial attack, according to more than a dozen Libyan witnesses as well as many American officials who have viewed the footage from security cameras."
The Times says Abu Khattala, who still freely moves around the area, suggested that the video insulting the Prophet Mohammed might well have justified the killing of four Americans. "From a religious point of view, it is hard to say whether it is good or bad," he told the newspaper.

[Peter1469]

See post #5.

And a link to al Qaeda related terrorists. (http://freebeacon.com/u-s-seeking-al-qaeda-terrorist-linked-to-benghazi-attack/)


The identification of Jamal as an al Qaeda member linked to the Benghazi attack contradicts a recent New York Times investigative report (http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi/?hp#/?chapt=0) that concluded there was no evidence al Qaeda or foreign terrorists were behind the Benghazi attack that is currently the subject of several congressional inquiries.

[texan]

I gotta admit I thought it was a cooking thread the first time I saw this.....

[Heyduke]

The Benghazi incident is interesting, and I think Stevens was also working to supply weapons to rebels in Syria, but i can't prove that.

More importantly, what's going on in Libya?

Obviously, I was never a fan of Gadhafi. But, I wonder if it's even possible for a small, resource-rich nation in the Middle East to have a free democracy when outside interests would just come in and buy their elections and/or support a coup against anyone elected that wasn't compliant to the demands of the Western interests. Sometimes I think that a semi-benign dictator is the best that a country like Libya can hope for. That's a depressing thought.

Anyway, as long as Libyans were willing to kiss Gadhafi's ring and not stir up any protest, they had education, free health care, cheap energy, and foreign workers to do all their dirty work. Gadhafi's greatest wish was to stay in power, and for his son to be an heir to his throne, and Lockerbe notwithstanding, I don't think America has been at risk of a Gadhafi supported terrorist attack for a long time.

Anyway, we supported the ouster of Gadhafi. Then, militias rounded up the foreign workers and killed or exiled them. Now, it's just a Hobbesian total war going on over there, militia against militia. Nobody has security, or healthcare, or resources. The status of women has gone from bad to worse. What happened to Gadhafi's 9 tons of gold? It ain't in Libya anymore.

When the militias kill each other off and the dust settles, Exxon and Chevron and BP and Shell will be in there siphoning off their oil using desperate Libyans as peon laborers.

Hillary can get up there in her pants suits and run for president in 2016, but she won't be running on her foreign policy achievements at the State Dept.

[Peter1469]

Here is an article that dissects the NYTimes' lame cover-up attempt: (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/367510/down-times-bengahzi-rabbit-hole-andrew-c-mccarthy)


What was the commander-in-chief of the United States armed forces doing through the night of September 11, 2012, while he knew Americans were under jihadist siege in Libya? You won’t learn the answer to that question by reading the mini-book-length, six-“chapter” revisionist history of the Benghazi massacre cooked up by David D. Kirkpatrick and the New York Times.

The Times report (http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi/?hp#/?chapt=0) is a labor of love in the service of President Obama and, in particular, the Hillary Clinton 2016 campaign ramp-up. Former secretary of state Clinton, of course, was a key architect of Obama’s Libya policy. She was also chiefly responsible for the protection of American personnel in that country, including our murdered ambassador, J. Christopher Stevens, and the three other Americans killed by Muslim terrorists — State Department technician Sean Smith and a pair of former Navy SEALs, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods. Still, the Times is banking on your not noticing that in its laborious 7,500 words, Kirkpatrick’s account utters the word “Clinton” exactly . . . wait for it . . . zero times.

[undine]

The video may have provided an added trigger but the date, September 11th, was also a trigger. Even so, while it may not have been unusual for Libyans to have rifles and pistols, having mortars and explosives plus the expertise to use them doesn't happen spontaneously.

Is it really surprising to think that some groups would have liked to use the anniversary of 9/11 to attack American installations?

The Benghazi attack wasn't the only one made that night:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11/afghanistan-attacks_n_1874017.html
It's probable that the date was a trigger but I've yet to see anything conclusive. In fact, we do not get attacked every 9/11. In fact, we do get attacked on a regular basis.

I find the entire conspiracy theory ridiculous on the level of the one about Bush being behind the original 9/11.

[Max Rockatansky]

Here is an article that dissects the NYTimes' lame cover-up attempt: (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/367510/down-times-bengahzi-rabbit-hole-andrew-c-mccarthy)

While I find Kirkpatrick's article questionable for many of the reason's McCarthy mentions, I also question McCarthy's article for a distinct lack of contradicting facts. McCarthy doesn't offer up anything except to repeat the same meme that Obama and Clinton conspired to trick the public with video. I'm surprised he also didn't mention "57 states" too. His article is a rant, not a factual piece of reporting.

I'd like to see a factual piece of reporting from the right.

[Peter1469]

It's probable that the date was a trigger but I've yet to see anything conclusive. In fact, we do not get attacked every 9/11. In fact, we do get attacked on a regular basis.

I find the entire conspiracy theory ridiculous on the level of the one about Bush being behind the original 9/11.

What in the conspiracy theory in this instance? I have heard some, but just want to see if they are the same as the one you are talking about. :smiley:

[Peter1469]

While I find Kirkpatrick's article questionable for many of the reason's McCarthy mentions, I also question McCarthy's article for a distinct lack of contradicting facts. McCarthy doesn't offer up anything except to repeat the same meme that Obama and Clinton conspired to trick the public with video. I'm surprised he also didn't mention "57 states" too. His article is a rant, not a factual piece of reporting.

I'd like to see a factual piece of reporting from the right.

That same criticism can be laid at the door of the NYTimes. Their article cherry picked facts and ignored sworn testimony and other facts that don't support the silly video meme.

[Max Rockatansky]

That same criticism can be laid at the door of the NYTimes. Their article cherry picked facts and ignored sworn testimony and other facts that don't support the silly video meme.

Absolutely. The best way to counter bullshit isn't more bullshit, it's facts. That's why I suggested a factual refutation of Kirkpatrick's article.

[undine]

What in the conspiracy theory in this instance? I have heard some, but just want to see if they are the same as the one you are talking about. :smiley:

Obama planned it to win re-election ;)

[texan]

The administration threaten everyone and made them sign confidentiality agreements. That always inspires confidence in government not to mention:

"My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government."

Pardon me while I throw-up.

[Max Rockatansky]

Nice slam of the NYT article by a retired Navy Commander and former Pentagon spokesman.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/01/02/alqaeda-libya-clinton-benghazi-times-column/4292593/

During her testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in January 2013, while trying to explain what caused the Benghazi Consulate attack, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton eventually blurted out, "what difference, at this point, does it make?"

Widely panned as a flippant response and brazen attempt to dodge responsibility, perhaps this question should now be addressed to The New York Times for its front page feature of December 28, 2013 entitled "A Deadly Mix in Benghazi" and subsequent aggressive defense via an official New York Times editorial, "The Facts about Benghazi," three days later.


Though the newspaper claims "an exhaustive investigation by The Times goes a long way toward resolving any nagging doubts about what precipitated the attack on the United States mission in Benghazi," the reporting and editorial have more holes than a king size block of Swiss cheese.


For starters, the Times' central thrust was finding "no evidence that Al Qaeda or another international terrorist group had any role in the assault."


Not only does that contradict U.S. intelligence authorities, including sworn testimony before Congress, it also purposely downplays the danger posed to all Americans from a wide variety of radical Islamic terror groups that routinely communicate and coordinate with each other. Many of these groups openly claim to be "affiliates" of Al Qaeda. Some of them almost certainly were among the Al Qaeda affiliates who participated in a rally in Benghazi in June of 2012, three months before the consulate killings. But when it comes to Al Qaeda, the Times defines the term even more narrowly than White House spokesman Jay Carney's reference to "Core Al Qaeda".


They seemingly apply it just to Ayman al-Zawahiri and his immediate circle, and then because there was no evidence that al-Zawahiri himself and his closest lieutenants were in Benghazi, then in their estimation, Al Qaeda was not involved in Benghazi. No harm, no foul.


Yet to quote Ms. Clinton, "what difference does it make?"


Are Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods any less dead because they were killed by anti-Western radical Islamists who may or may not have sworn a bayat, or solemn oath, to Al Qaeda leadership? Is the U.S. Consulate any less destroyed because Al Qaeda's affiliate Ansar al-Sharia, Arabic for Partisans of Islamic Law, was directly involved? Or as the Times claims as the ringleader, "eccentric, malcontent militia leader Abu Ahmed Khattala?"


Second, despite its six full chapters, including a lengthy discussion of the political fallout in Washington, there is curiously no reference to the 12 revisions of interagency talking points in which White House and State Deptartment senior officials watered down the facts so egregiously that the truth was changed by omission. This set Ambassador Susan Rice up for colossal failure, where she, knowingly or unknowingly, deceived the American people on five different Sunday morning talk shows.


Third, there is a glaring omission concerning the number of times U.S. Embassy Tripoli had asked State Dept. leadership in Washington for more robust security due to roughly 200 "Al Qaeda-related" incidents in Libya since Col. Moammar Qaddafi was overthrown.


Fourth, no reference was made to whether or not a rescue mission could have been mounted, or whether or not a stand down order had been given, and if so, by whom, to whom.


Fifth, while there is reference to the June 2012 rally in Benghazi of 200 armed militants, including Ansar al-Sharia, their ties to Al Qaeda in the Maghreb are conveniently left out — as is the fact they urged the killing of U.S. diplomats.


Lastly, how can the Times claim itself as the final authority for "the last word" on Benghazi? After all, instead of interviewing U.S. or allied intelligence authorities, they interviewed the very militants who claim to be involved in the Sept. 11 attack. Might it be possible that the Times was duped by the same people who killed our ambassador?


Perhaps instead of providing a national counter-narrative to what was arguably our worst scandal from the White House in recent decades, the Times has damaged its own credibility, and further damaged the reputations of the ones they were trying to protect.

[Professor Peabody]

No wonder Hillary got the hell out of town.

For good reason!


Benghazi, IRS: Son of Watergate?

Cal Thomas Tribune Media Services

4:30 a.m. CDT, May 14, 2013

In his defense of President Obama, Press Secretary Jay Carney is beginning to sound a lot like Ronald Zeigler, Richard Nixon's spokesman. Carney only has to use the word "inoperative," as Ziegler did when incriminating evidence surfaced that proved his previous statements untrue.

Following what appears to be a cover-up in the Benghazi attack, the Washington Post has obtained documents from an audit conducted by the IRS's inspector general that indicate the agency targeted for special scrutiny conservative groups with "tea party" and "patriot" in their names, as well as "nonprofit groups that criticized the government and sought to educate Americans about the U.S. Constitution."

IRS official Lois Lerner described the targeting efforts as "absolutely inappropriate," but said IRS actions were not driven by partisanship. How, then, would she explain why no groups with "progressive" in their titles were similarly targeted?

In 1972, Republican partisans initially accused Democrats of wanting to destroy President Nixon, but most were forced to acknowledge his culpability in Watergate once the facts became known. One of the Articles of Impeachment of Nixon concerned his misuse of the IRS to undermine political enemies.

Journalists should stop protecting President Obama and Hillary Clinton and do their jobs, like Sharyl Attkisson. Congressional Republicans should press for all the facts. That's their job.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/sns-201305131600--tms--cthomastq--b-a20130514-20130514,0,3145996.column

Congressional Democrats like the Republicans of 1972 will eventually be forced to acknowledge Obama's and the Democrat party leaders culpability in Benghazi, the IRS & EPA scandals as well as Fast & Furious once ALL the facts became known. They will have no choice but to admit the corruption and assist in getting rid of it or face the extinction of their party. It's going to be very interesting to watch it all shake out before the 2014 and 2016 elections.