http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/10/25/benghazi-obamas-actions-amount-to-a-shameful-dereliction-of-duty/

'ArtM72' pid='11692' datel Wrote:Somebody once said something to the effect that while there is a reality, each of us sees it differently through our own experiences. When I read from the oped you referenced: "The drone documents no crowds protesting any video [or any attack for that matter I suspect]. But at 4 pm Washington receives an email from the Benghazi mission [acually Tripoli?] that it is under military style attack. Subject: “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack.” The email states, “The Regional Security Officer reports the diplomatic mission is under attack. Embassy Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well. Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four COM personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support.” There is a fog of war that no one disputes. What I read is information that does not suggest the response, as your recommended oped stated, to send in fighter jets and attack helicopters. I read the five COM people are in the safe haven and the Libyans are providing security support. You have to ask, even if the attack on the first (and then later the second "safe house" was still going when the air support arrived just who is going to be targeted? Come in fast and hard and blindly kill anybody with a weapon as well as any unarmed friendly Libyans trying to help? My position remains that the President responded by stating he would find out what happened, who was responsible, bring those people to justice and as always determine what improvements could be made. Just how would any rational response be differen,t whether or not Benghazi was labelled early as terrorist or not? In my mind, finding out what happened, why and by whom and reacting appropriately is what is important. I just turned off FOX News which announced yet another investigation, this time by the Senate starting on or about November 15th. O'Reilly et al concluded the investigation wasn't scheduled until after the election because the White House was attempting a coverup. With a half dozen (my guess) Benghazi investigations already in progress I just don't think a new Senate investigation could accomplish anything between now and the election. But then, I don't believe finding truth is Fox's purpose when making the coverup claim. Fox's purpose in my view is to constantly throw sh*t against the wall knowing that something or other is likely to make an impression. As I said, we all view reality in different ways.

**********

..."My position remains that the President responded by stating he would find out what happened, who was responsible, bring those people to justice and as always determine what improvements could be made."...

Well Art, you should be a bit disappointed then.  Is it a selective memory or a desire to not face reality?  Your position is based on nothing as that's not what Obama did.   You have bought into the spin.  Let's contrast your version to reality.

OBAMA FINDS OUT WHAT HAPPENED:  It didn't take Obama Administration very long to do that.  About 12 hrs. tops.  Obama immediately and vehemently blamed the attack on an insulting video which sparked a protest of the video and some bad actors got out of hand.

OBAMA FINDING OUT WHO IS RESPONSIBLE:  Obama spent the next 2 weeks blaming (more like selling the US people a narrative) the video and the 'sketchy charachter' that made it.

OBAMA BRINGS THOSE PEOPLE TO JUSTICE:  Obama has the 'sketchy guy' video maker arrested.

Case closed then Art, The Commander in Chief had it all figured out.  Just like when Skip Gates was victimized by 'cops that acted foolishly'.  Maybe Obama planned to host a 'Beer Summit' with the protestors and the families of the 4 dead Americans.

Then the facts got in Obama's way.  He changed his story and lied to America/world in the 2nd debate.  All while they were either, according to you, trying to find out what happened and who was responsible?

'ArtM72' pid='11700' datel Wrote:Tree - Our realities are far different. You've selected from the elements of the tragedy to create the story you can believe. Yours already has all the answers. Mine, and likely the President's, State Department's, CIA's and FBI's still has a lot of work to do, working through conflicting reports, running an investigation in an unfriendly foreign country and while doing so continuing to advance American interests in the region along with ever present concerns for the security of our people and our allies in this fight. Concluding the 'sketchy guy' video maker is the end of the trail for this work is likely a projection of someone else's shallow views, certainly not the President's. In one way I almost fear the re-election of the President as I see no end to the hatred directed at him for little apparent reason. But then that is where we are as a nation today and with 17 of 24 Romney foreign policy advisors from the Bush team there are more than enough reasons to be fearful of the neocon return.

Hey Art,

As time passes and more truth comes out, our realities are quickly aligning.  That is, if you are willing to believe your good sense.  Many matters are debateable, some are not.  They just speak for themselves.  This Lybian tragedy was preventable and those Americans on the ground were not given the needed security and requested support to keep them safe.  Real time surveilance from the situation room and reports from the ground were all the information any American President should have needed to launch defensive forces.  A protest gone bad due to an anti-Muslim video, a lack on intelligence, the need for fact finding and the fog of war may have gotten Obama through a week or two, and now the weight of truth, incompetence and politics trumping security is quickly ensuring an Obama defeat at the polls....and that has nothing to do with hatred.

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

(edit)

The father of slain former Seal Tyrone Woods spoke out, only after, the e-mails proving the White House knew the attack was more than a protest gone bad and had nothing to do with a video.  Obama and Hillary knowingly lied to the father of a dead former SEAL.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/father-slain-seal-who-made-decision-not-save-my-son_657782.html

I pulled up the FOXNews link you provided. Here is what I learned from it:

• The attack on the consulate began around 10 pm (local Libyan time, 4 pm in Washington)
• A surveillance drone was dispatched to Benghazi after the attack began, followed by a second drone to relieve the first which may have been running out of fuel.
• Fighting at the consulate stopped for several hours (midnight to 3 am?) before the mortar fire at the annex commenced.
• An American Quick Reaction Force arrived at the Benghazi airport from Tripoli at 2 am.
• Libyan Militia arrived at the annex at 3 am.
• Woods and Doherty were killed by a mortar shell (one of four shots total in the attackl) at 4 am.

ASSUMING this all is true (the information is taken directly from thatFOX article) any suggestion that the White House was watching the entire time and doing nothing (as I believe you stated in an earlier post, something about 200 Americans sitting on their hands watching the show) is just simply wrong.

1. There was no drone overhead at the start of the attack. News of the attack went through channels and a drone was presumably immediately diverted from an existing mission; a second drone was launched and sent to scene.

2. A quick reaction force was activated in Tripoli and on the ground in Benghazi within hours.

3. The mortar attack on the Annex killing Woods and Doherty was very limited...only four rounds total...suggesting that threat was immediately taken out or fired their shots then disappeared.

As to this attack being "preventable" I would suggest the only way to absolutely prevent such things from happening is to remove all American diplomatic missions from overseas. Then some other American target would be chosen by people who have the motivation to do so. Maybe a university campus, maybe the office or plant of some American corporation, maybe a busload of American tourists somewhere. The fact is that nothing is absolutely preventable given sufficient motivation. By the way, the request for additional security was for the Tripoli embassy not the Benghazi consulate.

As to the continued harping about "The Video", "The video" certainly was an issue stirring up protests at that time in other parts of the Moslem world. So people connected dots incorrectly? The video association, whether it existed or not, has no relevance to what happened. The attack was an attack, whatever spawned it. Claiming somehow the President "was lying" about whether the attack was the result of video or terrorism is simply just another piece of sh*t thrown against the wall. Somehow that piece stuck in some people's minds as important even though it was completely irrelevent to the attack itself or the Administration's response. Completely irrelevent. Completely irrelevent, except to people who look for every opportunity to promote the hatred of Obama.

Go back and review the timeline of events before you do anymore Monday morning quarterbacking. When it comes to posting misinformation feel free to remove the log from your own eye before criticizing a speck in the President's.

'ArtM72' pid='11727' datel Wrote:

I pulled up the FOXNews link you provided. Here is what I learned from it: • The attack on the consulate began around 10 pm (local Libyan time, 4 pm in Washington) • A surveillance drone was dispatched to Benghazi after the attack began, followed by a second drone to relieve the first which may have been running out of fuel. • Fighting at the consulate stopped for several hours (midnight to 3 am?) before the mortar fire at the annex commenced. • An American Quick Reaction Force arrived at the Benghazi airport from Tripoli at 2 am. • Libyan Militia arrived at the annex at 3 am. • Woods and Doherty were killed by a mortar shell (one of four shots total in the attackl) at 4 am. ASSUMING this all is true (the information is taken directly from thatFOX article) any suggestion that the White House was watching the entire time and doing nothing (as I believe you stated in an earlier post, something about 200 Americans sitting on their hands watching the show) is just simply wrong. 1. There was no drone overhead at the start of the attack. News of the attack went through channels and a drone was presumably immediately diverted from an existing mission; a second drone was launched and sent to scene. 2. A quick reaction force was activated in Tripoli and on the ground in Benghazi within hours. 3. The mortar attack on the Annex killing Woods and Doherty was very limited...only four rounds total...suggesting that threat was immediately taken out or fired their shots then disappeared. As to this attack being "preventable" I would suggest the only way to absolutely prevent such things from happening is to remove all American diplomatic missions from overseas. Then some other American target would be chosen by people who have the motivation to do so. Maybe a university campus, maybe the office or plant of some American corporation, maybe a busload of American tourists somewhere. The fact is that nothing is absolutely preventable given sufficient motivation. By the way, the request for additional security was for the Tripoli embassy not the Benghazi consulate. As to the continued harping about "The Video", "The video" certainly was an issue stirring up protests at that time in other parts of the Moslem world. So people connected dots incorrectly? The video association, whether it existed or not, has no relevance to what happened. The attack was an attack, whatever spawned it. Claiming somehow the President "was lying" about whether the attack was the result of video or terrorism is simply just another piece of sh*t thrown against the wall. Somehow that piece stuck in some people's minds as important even though it was completely irrelevent to the attack itself or the Administration's response. Completely irrelevent. Completely irrelevent, except to people who look for every opportunity to promote the hatred of Obama. Go back and review the timeline of events before you do anymore Monday morning quarterbacking. When it comes to posting misinformation feel free to remove the log from your own eye before criticizing a speck in the President's.

Art, combine Forbes article info from Forbes and FOX  for the picture.  Some of your bullet point facts/conclusions are incorrect:

..."Based on documents released by the House Oversight Committee, the day of the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, September 11, the White House situation room starts receiving emails at about 1 pm that the mission is under hostile surveillance.  The only response was that the Pentagon sends a drone armed with a video camera so that everyone in Washington can see what transpires in real time, as it happens, at the White House, at the State Department, at the Pentagon, at the CIA.

The drone documents no crowds protesting any video.  But at 4 pm Washington receives an email from the Benghazi mission that it is under military style attack. Subject: “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack.” The email states,

“The Regional Security Officer reports the diplomatic mission is under attack. Embassy Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well.  Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four COM personnel are in the compound safe haven.  The 17^th of February militia is providing security support.”

The attack was then fed to all of them, the White House, the Pentagon, the State Dept., the CIA, through live video feed.  A later email that day reported, “Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack.”  The feed showed no protest of any supposedly offensive You Tube video.

Fox:

..."Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate (4 pm)  and subsequent attack several hours later on the annex itself was denied by the CIA chain of command -- who also told the CIA operators twice to "stand down" rather than help the ambassador's team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11. 

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

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

At that point, (12 am) they called again for military support and help because they were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied. There were no communications problems at the annex, according those present at the compound. The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Spectre gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights...............CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Youngblood, though, denied the claims that requests for support were turned down. ....."We can say with confidence that the Agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi," she said. "Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.  In fact, it is important to remember how many lives were saved by courageous Americans who put their own safety at risk that night-and that some of those selfless Americans gave their lives in the effort to rescue their comrades." 

The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours (12 am - 4 am) -- enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just 480 miles away, to arrive. Fox News has also learned that two separate Tier One Special operations forces were told to wait, among them Delta Force operators."...

Per these articles:

At 1 pm, 3hrs. prior to attack, consulate reports hostile surveilance.  No extra security was dispatched and US Ambassador had been warning Washington that Lybian security forces were inadequate (Fox).  Would have been prudent to dispatch additional security, since it was 9/11 of all days?   1st drone was overhead at 1 pm 3 hrs. prior to Embassy attack at 4 pm. No protestors.  So why did Obama blame protest gone bad for attack.

4 pm Embassy attacked and CIA team a mile away told to stand down.  It is reported order is from CIA chain of command.  CIA spokeswoman denies that stand down order came from CIA.  Who ordered the stand down?? CIA Woods and a couple others disregard order and move to Embassy, fight attackers brin about 27 live and 1 dead American back to the CIA compound at about midnight.  Requests for military back up denied.  Fighting at CIA quarters ensues and continues for more than 4 hrs.  Result is CIA's Woods and Doherty die in the fighting.

Bottom line is: Precautions could have been taken in the 3 hrs. prior to Embassy attack, none were.  Woods and a couple others disregard orders and likely saved 27 American's lives.  Repeated requests for aerial support, which should have been in place, were denied.  Woods and Doherty dead as a result.  Eyes in Washington watched from drones and security cameras 3 hrs. prior to,  the Embassy attack, the rescue by Woods and others, the attack on the CIA compound.  More should have been done, that is not Monday morning QBing.  The whole attack was blamed on a protest which did not exist and that was a lie.  Repeating of that lie for a couple of weeks is a cover-up.  Not acceptable.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/cia-operators-were-denied-request-for-help-during-benghazi-attack-sources-say/#ixzz2AWyFfcOz

'ArtM72' pid='11738' datel Wrote:I guess there are a lot of different stories out there. Maybe we should wait and see what really happened. By the way, the story that in places contradicts Fox wasn't by Forbes, it was by a contributor to Forbes. Might make a difference as to its accuracy. I don't know what "hostile surveillance" means. I also don't quite understand how fighting occurred at the annex for four hours with only four mortar rounds by the enemy. When the two CIA contractors were killed at 4 am local the US rapid response team was already on site together with 10 trucks of Libyan military friendlies. And since you keep on bringing it up, just what difference did it make whether this was a "terrorist attack" or an attack by unhappy Gaddafi loyalists or LIbyan nationalists who just didn't want to see an English school opened in their country? You never answered that, most probably because you'd have to admit that it makes no difference. Lots of different stories, lots of questions, lots of opinions. I guess it is more satisfying to have an early answer to everything, whether or not it is the right answer, especially if it can be used to beat up the President. In my America politics used to end at the nation's shores. In my America the Republican party didn't actively work to illegally disenfranchise voters. (I say illegally because in every case these hypocrites wrapping themselves in the Constitution have had their laws overturned by the courts). In my America we used to talk about speaking softly and carry a big stick. Today's conservative has none of those old values. It sucks, but it is true.

**********

Art, your partisanship blinds you or Spartina's comment describes you.  Which one?

1) Hostile Surveillance:  "For any attack, from the most simple to the most sophisticated, Hostile Surveillance is the earliest stage at which the professional security operator is likely to become aware of a potential hostile intent. Whether it is by terrorist or criminal groups, or single-purpose activists committed to disrupting AGM’s, making anti-globalization protests or simply obtaining high- profile media coverage, the ability to conduct hostile surveillance without fear of being spotted or diverted is one of the major considerations during Target Selection."

2) Not all 4 hr. battles require non-stop mortar attacks.  You think they were attacking with rubber bands?

3) Don't you think the US rapid response team should have been dispatched earlier Art?  Like maybe with the drone?  Like maybe while the WH was watching live, the initial assault on the Embassy after being warned the Embassy was under hostile surveillance?

4)  ..."And since you keep on bringing it up, just what difference did it make whether this was a "terrorist attack" or an attack by unhappy Gaddafi loyalists or LIbyan nationalists who just didn't want to see an English school opened in their country? You never answered that, most probably because you'd have to admit that it makes no difference."..    Really Art?

I have answered this Art, likely 6 times already.  Obama and his heralds LIED about the nature of the attack by LYING and calling the attack a result of a protest over an offensive video gone bad.    So, the big deal is, again, Obama chose politics over the protecting the Embassy and politics over the truth of the nature of the attack.  Then in 2nd debate he LIED again and claimed he identified it as an 'act of terror'  in Rose Garden comments he day after.  A bold faced lie, and millions of viewers knew it.

5) ..."I guess it is more satisfying to have an early answer to everything, whether or not it is the right answer, especially if it can be used to beat up the President. In my America politics used to end at the nation's shores. In my America the Republican party didn't actively work to illegally disenfranchise voters."...

An early answer is not at issue.  At issue is the EARLY LIE and subsequent cover up by Obama.    Good Lord Art, Obama and Hillary lied to the face of the father of Tyrone Woods, as his son was returned to him in a box.  Then an American that made a tasteless video was arrested and threatened with charges.  That's acceptable to you is it Art?  Get it yet?  The rest of your paragraph is pure malarkey.

6)  "When the two CIA contractors were killed at 4 am local the US rapid response team was already on site together with 10 trucks of Libyan military friendlies."  

Sure...... And the American Ambassador had been dead for what 14 hrs?  Had been brutally murdered, sodomized and dragged through the streets by then Art.  Perhaps if early requests for help were honored all would be alive today.

7)  "Maybe we should wait and see what really happened."  I think we already know.  At issue is not the minutea.