PDA

View Full Version : The Security Failures of Benghazi


DJofSD
10-10-2012, 04:33 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HW-LTyOPf14

3 hours.

Some very engaging discussion, testimony and, yes, even posturing.

My take away: the current regime f*cked up, royally.

Valuist
10-10-2012, 04:49 PM
I think its time we compare coverups.

How many Americans died as a result of Watergate?

DJofSD
10-10-2012, 04:58 PM
Sorry, the link I posted is not the entire hearing. I'm not sure if I messed up or they did.

I see on Twitter CSPAN will have the entire hearing tonight.

P.S. The video has been pulled. I think they messed up. Oh well.

DJofSD
10-10-2012, 05:12 PM
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/10/10/lamb_to_the_slaughter

In an often heated congressional hearing Wednesday, lawmakers and witnesses alike pointed to State Department official Charlene Lamb as the person most directly responsible for rejecting multiple requests for increased security at the U.S. diplomatic missions in Libya prior to the Sept. 11 attack.

More at the link.

I must admit, this is one time I am happy members of Congress are lawyers, thinking and performing as such.

Tom
10-10-2012, 09:21 PM
Heads need to roll here.
From the top down.

NJ Stinks
10-10-2012, 09:23 PM
My take away: the current regime f*cked up, royally.

Your take away is a total surprise. :rolleyes:

ElKabong
10-10-2012, 09:25 PM
Your take away is a total surprise. :rolleyes:

What would you call it? A success?

Tom
10-10-2012, 09:30 PM
Sad when people are so biased politically they cannot acknowledge when their side has done something wrong.

People were tortured and murdering serving this country and all thel eft here can do is wipe OBama's............nose for him.

Really sad how low the bar is on the left side.

bigmack
10-10-2012, 09:34 PM
Your take away is a total surprise. :rolleyes:
I figured you had more character, to in the least ask for THE TRUTH for the families of the dead, but NO you resort to political hacking.

This is QUICKLY turning into a VERY BIG deal.

G6jBZLZiuBM

NJ Stinks
10-10-2012, 09:34 PM
What would you call it? A success?

I'm not calling it anything. I am saying that DJ's comment was not exactly a shocker.

johnhannibalsmith
10-10-2012, 09:40 PM
I'm not calling it anything. I am saying that DJ's comment was not exactly a shocker.

And then added :rolleyes: as if to say he reached that conclusion because of the administration and not the outcome. Is it fair to say that they f****d up if you ordinarily support the administration?

NJ Stinks
10-10-2012, 09:53 PM
And then added :rolleyes: as if to say he reached that conclusion because of the administration and not the outcome. Is it fair to say that they f****d up if you ordinarily support the administration?

I'm not "as if"fing anything. DJ would not be bring anything up that made this administration look good. Period.

Of course, somebody screwed up. Four people are dead. There should have been extra security - especially on 9/11.

boxcar
10-10-2012, 10:01 PM
I'm not "as if"fing anything. DJ would not be bring anything up that made this administration look good. Period.

Of course, somebody screwed up. Four people are dead. There should have been extra security - especially on 9/11.

And what have you ever proffered on this forum that would have put BO in a bad light? Period!

Boxcar

johnhannibalsmith
10-10-2012, 10:02 PM
I'm not "as if"fing anything. DJ would not be bring anything up that made this administration look good. Period.

Of course, somebody screwed up. Four people are dead. There should have been extra security - especially on 9/11.

Well that's what I mean - this was probably a silly place to make that point about DJ - even you agree with him so it isn't as though there's much reason to discredit a post that you also think is a no-brainer.

NJ Stinks
10-10-2012, 11:09 PM
Well that's what I mean - this was probably a silly place to make that point about DJ - even you agree with him so it isn't as though there's much reason to discredit a post that you also think is a no-brainer.

Hey, maybe DJ caught me in a bad mood! :mad:

:)

JustRalph
10-11-2012, 12:10 AM
Funny how the major networks have left out that the Ambassador was sodomized on the street.

Not sure about the others

mostpost
10-11-2012, 12:38 AM
Funny how the major networks have left out that the Ambassador was sodomized on the street.

Not sure about the others
Maybe the major networks left it out because it never happened. Cross out that maybe.

JustRalph
10-11-2012, 12:57 AM
Maybe the major networks left it out because it never happened. Cross out that maybe.

Several reports say it happened including media in the middle east

mostpost
10-11-2012, 12:58 AM
An interesting thing that I learned as I watched the hearing is that House Republicans cut $128M from embassy security in 2011 and $331M in 2012. Some of that was restored in the Senate, but funding was still $370M short of what the State Department requested.

Jason Chaffetz, Republican from Utah admitted to voting for the cuts saying "we have to prioritize." Apparently the safety of our diplomatic core is not a priority for Mr. Chaffetz.

There was one point in the hearing when Rep. Lynch (D) of Ma. asked Ms Lamb about additional security forces located in an annex. He asked how many security forces were in that annex. Before she could reply Mr. Chaffetz went on a rant about how that information would create a security breech.

This whole hearing is about the accusation that we did not have sufficient security at the Benghazi legation. The personnel at the annex were in addition to the security accompanying the ambassador, yet we were not allowed to know how many people were in that group. Is it possible that Mr. Chaffetz did not want that information in the record because it would destroy the Republicans contention that there was insufficient security. I think that is precisely the reason.

I did not hear this myself but it has been reported that during his testimony Eric Nordstrom stated that even a much larger security force would not have been able to counter the attack from the terrorists.

The witch hunt continues tomorrow. Christine O'Donnel better stay in hiding.

PaceAdvantage
10-11-2012, 01:00 AM
I can't wait for the foreign policy portion of the debate. I predict this will be where Romney administers the kill shot to Obama's reelection chances...

Obama can cite Osama all he wants, but the murder of a US Ambassador on Obama's watch in an environment Obama himself was responsible for creating will carry devastating weight on debate night.

mostpost
10-11-2012, 01:00 AM
Several reports say it happened including media in the middle east

More like some one reported it and the righty blogoshere repeated it ad nauseum.

lsbets
10-11-2012, 01:04 AM
More like some one reported it and the righty blogoshere repeated it ad nauseum.

It was reported by the media in Libya and Lebanon.

ElKabong
10-11-2012, 01:07 AM
More like some one reported it and the righty blogoshere repeated it ad nauseum.

Nope, there were reports of sodomized dead Americans in the BenGhazi terrorist attack.

http://www.examiner.com/article/lebanese-report-us-ambassador-raped-before-murdered

Lebanese report: US Ambassador raped before murdered


Maybe we'll never know/ Our people were overtaken b/c they were outmanned. Unlike the Alamo, there were no living witnesses to the entire slaughter that are willing to tell the truth about what happened.

Two things come to mind....
Where has Hillary been the past 2-3 days?
With needed budget cuts, is it time to pull a lot of our people out of many of these hot spots? That question is for both Cons and Libs. Needs to be addressed.

mostpost
10-11-2012, 01:24 AM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/libya-video/9540509/US-ambassador-killed-in-Libya-attack-Chris-Stevens-given-CPR-for-90-m

The doctor who performed CPR on Stevens for ninety minutes said there were no marks on his body; no signs of injury. He died of smoke inhalation. He was taken to the hospital by Libyans in a private car. Video at the link.

Well the link does not work. I will find the wikipedia page and post the footnote.
Back in a few.

mostpost
10-11-2012, 01:30 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_the_U.S._diplomatic_mission_in_Benghazi

That is the wiki page. Go to footnote #34 and click on the story. The video is there.

lsbets
10-11-2012, 01:37 AM
No injuries? The pictures of him appear to contradict that claim.

PaceAdvantage
10-11-2012, 01:38 AM
It doesn't matter whether he was sodomized or not.

The fact remains that a United States Ambassador was MURDERED/ASSASSINATED because his President and Secretary of State FAILED to provide him with the necessary security in what we later learned was a very HOT ZONE.

It doesn't matter that funding had been cut from embassy security. This wasn't just some random outpost where nothing was going on. This was a documented HOT ZONE where mortar and RPG weapons were in use and documented.

This administration dropped the ball BIG TIME, and unlike Bush on 9/11, THIS PRESIDENT on 9/11 had documentation that not only pointed to a TIME and PLACE, but also the SPECIFIC THREATS and WEAPONRY involved.

Worse yet, Obama tried to pass this off as some sort of response to some anti-Islamic movie on YOUTUBE!!! When in fact, we now all know (and HE KNEW at the time) that it had nothing to do with that....

Good luck during the foreign policy portion of the debate Mr. President. You'll need it!

NJ Stinks
10-11-2012, 02:57 AM
This administration dropped the ball BIG TIME, and unlike Bush on 9/11, THIS PRESIDENT on 9/11 had documentation that not only pointed to a TIME and PLACE, but also the SPECIFIC THREATS and WEAPONRY involved.

Worse yet, Obama tried to pass this off as some sort of response to some anti-Islamic movie on YOUTUBE!!! When in fact, we now all know (and HE KNEW at the time) that it had nothing to do with that....

Good luck during the foreign policy portion of the debate Mr. President. You'll need it!

To bring up 9/11/2001 and the deaths of almost 3,000 Americans ON OUR SOIL and to somehow compare it to the deaths of 4 Americans IN LIBYA less than a year after it's civil war is ludicrous. I use the word ludicrous because this your website.

PaceAdvantage
10-11-2012, 03:04 AM
To bring up 9/11/2001 and the deaths of almost 3,000 Americans ON OUR SOIL and to somehow compare it to the deaths of 4 Americans IN LIBYA less than a year after it's civil war is ludicrous. I use the word ludicrous because this your website.I wasn't comparing the two events. Thers is no comparison, and for you to imply that I was somehow comparing or equating the two terrorist attacks is the only thing ludicrous here.

I was bringing up the notion that Bush was somehow negligent in 9/11 because he supposedly had "memos" warning him of "Osama determined to attack inside US."

Yes, he did have memos saying "Osama determined to attack," but that's about as far as the details went.

Yet, when THIS president actually HAS memos and intel detailing a specific LOCATION, likely DATE (9/11 anniversary), and WEAPONRY to be USED in the attack (recent reports of mortar and RPGs), he STILL can't prevent what you rightly categorize as an infinitely smaller scale attack.

Therefore, one can only conclude that Obams is ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more incompetent than Bush when it comes to protecting our citizens against terrorist attacks, based on the facts entered into evidence, and especially IF you believe Bush was incompetent in his failure to stop 9/11.

JustRalph
10-11-2012, 04:58 AM
There are actual requets from the dead ambassador for more Security

Hillary said no due to the way it would look.

Bad mojo no matter how you slice it

The coverup is even worse.

If this was Bush we would be talking impeachment articles being drawn up by Dems

Valuist
10-11-2012, 08:48 AM
There are actual requets from the dead ambassador for more Security

Hillary said no due to the way it would look.

Bad mojo no matter how you slice it

The coverup is even worse.

If this was Bush we would be talking impeachment articles being drawn up by Dems

Coverups only matter if one is a conservative. Lets not forget the worst, most heinous act in the modern world: Watergate. All the deaths.....all the violence. :rolleyes:

Tom
10-11-2012, 09:20 AM
Nixon lied, people......uh, they, uh, ummm.....watched a lot of senate hearings on TV.

Oh, the humanity.......

ArlJim78
10-11-2012, 10:06 AM
In a May 3, 2012, email, the
State Department denied a request by a group of Special Forces assigned to protect the U.S. embassy in Libya to continue their use of a DC- 3 airplane for security operations throughout the country.

The subject line of the email, on which slain Ambassador
Chris Stevens was copied, read: “Termination of Tripoli DC-3
Support.”

Four days later, on May 7, the State Department authorized
the U.S. embassy in Vienna to purchase a $108,000 electric vehicle charging station for the embassy motor pool’s new Chevrolet Volts. The purchase was a part of the State Department’s “Energy Efficiency Sweep of Europe” initiative, which included hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars on green program expenditures at various U.S. Embassies.


http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/10/kelly-libya-security-cut-while-vienna-embassy-gain/

Tom
10-11-2012, 10:51 AM
Un-friggin-beeleevable!

Green Kills.

DJofSD
10-11-2012, 11:21 AM
The issues surround the Volt/green initiative for the Vienna (?) shin-dig was covered at the end of yesterday's hearing.

johnhannibalsmith
10-11-2012, 06:33 PM
I'm starting to feel badly for these people like Carney, Rice, and now, this Stephanie Cutter that have to go around and act as a NASA heat shield for those actually calling the shots. I can't believe this Cutter just actually sat down with Bret Baier and took a stab at answering his questions and defending her statements on CNN. Too bad the actual players don't feel that is part of the job.

bigmack
10-11-2012, 06:49 PM
I can't believe this Cutter just actually sat down with Bret Baier and took a stab at answering his questions and defending her statements on CNN.
That Baier interview was ghastly. Steph is in a constant state of flustered.

I'd have some interest but it turns out she likes women as mush as me. :p

JustRalph
10-13-2012, 02:42 AM
Funny how you left out the part where Lamb was asked directly if budget cuts were the reason security was not up to snuff?

She replied "no"






An interesting thing that I learned as I watched the hearing is that House Republicans cut $128M from embassy security in 2011 and $331M in 2012. Some of that was restored in the Senate, but funding was still $370M short of what the State Department requested.

Jason Chaffetz, Republican from Utah admitted to voting for the cuts saying "we have to prioritize." Apparently the safety of our diplomatic core is not a priority for Mr. Chaffetz.

There was one point in the hearing when Rep. Lynch (D) of Ma. asked Ms Lamb about additional security forces located in an annex. He asked how many security forces were in that annex. Before she could reply Mr. Chaffetz went on a rant about how that information would create a security breech.

This whole hearing is about the accusation that we did not have sufficient security at the Benghazi legation. The personnel at the annex were in addition to the security accompanying the ambassador, yet we were not allowed to know how many people were in that group. Is it possible that Mr. Chaffetz did not want that information in the record because it would destroy the Republicans contention that there was insufficient security. I think that is precisely the reason.

I did not hear this myself but it has been reported that during his testimony Eric Nordstrom stated that even a much larger security force would not have been able to counter the attack from the terrorists.

The witch hunt continues tomorrow. Christine O'Donnel better stay in hiding.

DJofSD
10-15-2012, 12:54 PM
http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2012/10/issa-state-dept-sitting-on-billionplus-for-embassy-138402.html?hp=r2_b3

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) says the State Department is sitting on $2.2 billion that should be spent on upgrading security at U.S. embassies and consulates worldwide, but the Obama administration will not spend the funds.

Beyond shameful.

mostpost
10-15-2012, 02:53 PM
http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2012/10/issa-state-dept-sitting-on-billionplus-for-embassy-138402.html?hp=r2_b3



Beyond shameful.
Anything Issa says, I am extremely suspicious. I watched the Issa interview on line. The link you posted makes it sound as though the State Department has money earmarked for Embassy security that they are not spending. $2.2B in fact That is not the case.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50133119n&tag=contentMain;contentBody

At about the ten minute mark of the video, Issa starts talking about the $2.2B. He categorizes it not as money for security, but as discretionary funds. About two minutes later he uses the term, discretionary, reprogrammable money. All of this is in response to a question by Bob Schieffer as to whether
the Republican house cut half a billion form the budget for Embassy security.

Issa tried to downplay the cuts by saying it was not a lack of money, but a lack of judgement that caused the problem. If that was the case, it does not matter if there is $2.2B available that has not been spent. Issa wants to have it both ways. He wants it to be Okay that Republicans cut the security budget and he wants to blame the Obama administration for not spending money that was not even earmarked for embassy security.

You can be sure that if that $2.2B had been spent on security and if there had been no attack and if that money (now gone) had been needed for another problem, Issa would have led the chorus of outrage.

boxcar
10-15-2012, 03:12 PM
Anything Issa says, I am extremely suspicious. I watched the Issa interview on line. The link you posted makes it sound as though the State Department has money earmarked for Embassy security that they are not spending. $2.2B in fact That is not the case.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50133119n&tag=contentMain;contentBody

At about the ten minute mark of the video, Issa starts talking about the $2.2B. He categorizes it not as money for security, but as discretionary funds. About two minutes later he uses the term, discretionary, reprogrammable money. All of this is in response to a question by Bob Schieffer as to whether
the Republican house cut half a billion form the budget for Embassy security.

Issa tried to downplay the cuts by saying it was not a lack of money, but a lack of judgement that caused the problem. If that was the case, it does not matter if there is $2.2B available that has not been spent. Issa wants to have it both ways. He wants it to be Okay that Republicans cut the security budget and he wants to blame the Obama administration for not spending money that was not even earmarked for embassy security.

You can be sure that if that $2.2B had been spent on security and if there had been no attack and if that money (now gone) had been needed for another problem, Issa would have led the chorus of outrage.

What part of "discretionary" don't you understand? Since the funds were there, then the only thing lacking was judgment. That was M.I.A. -- not the funds.

Boxcar

PaceAdvantage
10-15-2012, 03:14 PM
How exactly did the Republicans cut the security budget without Democrat approval? I'm a bit weak on these legislative/budgetary proceedings. Enlighten me with a link or two, would ya please mostpost?

johnhannibalsmith
10-15-2012, 03:25 PM
Didn't we already learn from the State Dept. itself that all this talk of budget cuts is a red herring anyway because it played absolutely no role in the decisions that were made?

Tom
10-15-2012, 03:34 PM
The cuts would have had to passed the democrat controlled Senate, no?
And be signed by the Kenyan?

elysiantraveller
10-15-2012, 03:50 PM
The spending cuts are a non factor here. The house passed a bill with the cuts in it to the senate. The senate then made some changes including a smaller cut. The bill was then sent back to house and passed through both the house and senate...

Believe it or not... That's the way our government is SUPPOSED to work.

But leave it to democrats to try and make a bipartisan bill something else divisive.

bigmack
10-15-2012, 04:02 PM
It's not/wasn't a dough issue. The quintessential bureaucratic woman testified to that effect last week.

HillaryC wants to have a low profile presence at embassy's to 'blend in' with the folk. It cost 4 Amercians their lives.

The end.

Tom
10-15-2012, 09:10 PM
The spending cuts are a non factor here. The house passed a bill with the cuts in it to the senate. The senate then made some changes including a smaller cut. The bill was then sent back to house and passed through both the house and senate...

Believe it or not... That's the way our government is SUPPOSED to work.

But leave it to democrats to try and make a bipartisan bill something else divisive.

So it was a fluke? :D

elysiantraveller
10-15-2012, 10:43 PM
So it was a fluke? :D

:)

You'd think so wouldn't ya?

rastajenk
10-15-2012, 11:31 PM
So, has Hill screwed her pooch insofar as future political glory goes? Or is the fickle American public going to give her credit for taking the hit when her eunuch president wouldn't, and let her continue to be a player? I can't see the Clintonafia letting this go without some kind of retribution.

JustRalph
10-16-2012, 12:02 AM
So, has Hill screwed her pooch

Nope. Bill doesn't even live with her anymore