Benghazi - the BHO administration was "inconsistent."

WaterEngineerWaterEngineer Posts: 24,414 AG
Bipartisan report, and reported in the left leaning, "The Hill."

Text:

A new bipartisan report from the Senate Homeland Security Committee faults both the State Department and Pentagon for failing to adequately protect the Americans killed in the deadly September attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

The report, titled “Flashing Red,” comes after a critical independent State Department-ordered review, and widens the blame for the assault, which left four Americans dead, to the Pentagon and White House.

The committee found that the State Department failed to appropriately assess and heighten security measures after intelligence showed that Americans stationed in Benghazi could be threatened by terror groups, according to reports from media groups that obtained an advance copy of the findings. The report will be released Monday.

While the committee report acknowledges that there was no specific intelligence pointing to an imminent attack, officials in Washington failed to take “effective steps” to protect the Benghazi facility and the diplomats there.

The report also blames the Pentagon, finding that the Defense Department (DOD) had failed to place adequate resources in the region to respond “in the event of a crisis.”

"Although DOD attempted to quickly mobilize its resources, it did not have assets or personnel close enough to reach Benghazi in a timely fashion," the report concludes.

The report is also harshly critical of the administration’s handling of the attack, finding the White House explanation in the days following the assault “inconsistent.”

http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/middle-east-north-africa/274947-senate-report-faults-pentagon-state-dept-over-benghazi-attack
Which ever one(s) of you little boys complained about quotes in the signature should be ashamed of yourself. :blowkiss

Instead of complaining to the moderators you should just quit playing on this board.

Replies

  • SWFL_F1sh0nSWFL_F1sh0n Posts: 17,248 Officer
    mission-accomplished-banner.jpg

    nough said.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • CobiaCobia Posts: 564 Officer
    While the committee report acknowledges that there was no specific intelligence pointing to an imminent attack, officials in Washington failed to take “effective steps” to protect the Benghazi facility and the diplomats there.

    Kinda like 9-11, Eh.
    Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that is even remotely possible. Homer Simpson
  • WaterEngineerWaterEngineer Posts: 24,414 AG
    No, not at all, but nice try.
    Which ever one(s) of you little boys complained about quotes in the signature should be ashamed of yourself. :blowkiss

    Instead of complaining to the moderators you should just quit playing on this board.
  • chubascochubasco Posts: 18,390 Officer
    Cobia wrote: »
    While the committee report acknowledges that there was no specific intelligence pointing to an imminent attack, officials in Washington failed to take “effective steps” to protect the Benghazi facility and the diplomats there.

    Kinda like 9-11, Eh.
    No, not at all, but nice try.


    Water is right, with 9/11 Bush had far more warning.




    The Deafness Before the Storm

    By KURT EICHENWALD

    IT was perhaps the most famous presidential briefing in history.

    On Aug. 6, 2001, President George W. Bush received a classified review of the threats posed by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, Al Qaeda. That morning’s “presidential daily brief” — the top-secret document prepared by America’s intelligence agencies — featured the now-infamous heading: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” A few weeks later, on 9/11, Al Qaeda accomplished that goal.

    On April 10, 2004, the Bush White House declassified that daily brief — and only that daily brief — in response to pressure from the 9/11 Commission, which was investigating the events leading to the attack. Administration officials dismissed the document’s significance, saying that, despite the jaw-dropping headline, it was only an assessment of Al Qaeda’s history, not a warning of the impending attack. While some critics considered that claim absurd, a close reading of the brief showed that the argument had some validity.

    That is, unless it was read in conjunction with the daily briefs preceding Aug. 6, the ones the Bush administration would not release. While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.

    The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.

    But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat. Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.

    In response, the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real.

    “The U.S. is not the target of a disinformation campaign by Usama Bin Laden,” the daily brief of June 29 read, using the government’s transliteration of Bin Laden’s first name. Going on for more than a page, the document recited much of the evidence, including an interview that month with a Middle Eastern journalist in which Bin Laden aides warned of a coming attack, as well as competitive pressures that the terrorist leader was feeling, given the number of Islamists being recruited for the separatist Russian region of Chechnya.

    And the C.I.A. repeated the warnings in the briefs that followed. Operatives connected to Bin Laden, one reported on June 29, expected the planned near-term attacks to have “dramatic consequences,” including major casualties. On July 1, the brief stated that the operation had been delayed, but “will occur soon.” Some of the briefs again reminded Mr. Bush that the attack timing was flexible, and that, despite any perceived delay, the planned assault was on track.

    Yet, the White House failed to take significant action. Officials at the Counterterrorism Center of the C.I.A. grew apoplectic. On July 9, at a meeting of the counterterrorism group, one official suggested that the staff put in for a transfer so that somebody else would be responsible when the attack took place, two people who were there told me in interviews. The suggestion was batted down, they said, because there would be no time to train anyone else.

    That same day in Chechnya, according to intelligence I reviewed, Ibn Al-Khattab, an extremist who was known for his brutality and his links to Al Qaeda, told his followers that there would soon be very big news. Within 48 hours, an intelligence official told me, that information was conveyed to the White House, providing more data supporting the C.I.A.’s warnings. Still, the alarm bells didn’t sound.

    On July 24, Mr. Bush was notified that the attack was still being readied, but that it had been postponed, perhaps by a few months. But the president did not feel the briefings on potential attacks were sufficient, one intelligence official told me, and instead asked for a broader analysis on Al Qaeda, its aspirations and its history. In response, the C.I.A. set to work on the Aug. 6 brief.

    In the aftermath of 9/11, Bush officials attempted to deflect criticism that they had ignored C.I.A. warnings by saying they had not been told when and where the attack would occur. That is true, as far as it goes, but it misses the point. Throughout that summer, there were events that might have exposed the plans, had the government been on high alert. Indeed, even as the Aug. 6 brief was being prepared, Mohamed al-Kahtani, a Saudi believed to have been assigned a role in the 9/11 attacks, was stopped at an airport in Orlando, Fla., by a suspicious customs agent and sent back overseas on Aug. 4. Two weeks later, another co-conspirator, Zacarias Moussaoui, was arrested on immigration charges in Minnesota after arousing suspicions at a flight school. But the dots were not connected, and Washington did not react.

    Could the 9/11 attack have been stopped, had the Bush team reacted with urgency to the warnings contained in all of those daily briefs? We can’t ever know. And that may be the most agonizing reality of all.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html?_r=0
    Chubasco.jpg
  • WaterEngineerWaterEngineer Posts: 24,414 AG
    If you want to play Ya....but. Let's go back to Slick Willy and his doing nothing.

    Now Chubs, do you have anything to say about the original post and the topic of the inconsistencies in the BHO administration?
    Which ever one(s) of you little boys complained about quotes in the signature should be ashamed of yourself. :blowkiss

    Instead of complaining to the moderators you should just quit playing on this board.
  • SWFL_F1sh0nSWFL_F1sh0n Posts: 17,248 Officer
    If you want to play Ya....but. Let's go back to Slick Willy and his doing nothing.

    Heck, let's go back to Reagan who funded him, armed him, and gave him his grand start!
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • chubascochubasco Posts: 18,390 Officer
    If you want to play Ya....but. Let's go back to Slick Willy and his doing nothing.

    Now Chubs, do you have anything to say about the original post and the topic of the inconsistencies in the BHO administration?

    Water I'll bet that if any network had told us about this Bengazzi stuff before the election Romney would have won for sure. If only Fox would have run with this type of stuff.
    Chubasco.jpg
  • Bimini TwistedBimini Twisted Posts: 11,130 AG
    I'd like to hear more about the Fast and the Furious, how did that help our right wing friends out in the election?
  • WaterEngineerWaterEngineer Posts: 24,414 AG
    Yep, I'd like to hear more about F&F, too. Why is it swept under the run and why does EH still have a job?
    Which ever one(s) of you little boys complained about quotes in the signature should be ashamed of yourself. :blowkiss

    Instead of complaining to the moderators you should just quit playing on this board.
  • old thompsonold thompson Posts: 6,497 Officer
    I'd like to hear more about the Fast and the Furious, how did that help our right wing friends out in the election?

    Didn't hurt.


    I 'd like to hear more on how Fort Hood Hasan is doing. Why hasn't he been put to trial yet? What could the holdup possibly be?

    :shrug

    Shoulda stretched his neck by now.
    He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

    No representation without taxation!
  • Bimini TwistedBimini Twisted Posts: 11,130 AG
    Didn't hurt.


    I 'd like to hear more on how Fort Hood Hasan is doing. Why hasn't he been put to trial yet? What could the holdup possibly be?

    :shrug

    Shoulda stretched his neck by now.

    Fact is conservative priorities, aren't American priorities, simple as that. If they were, you would have won the election.
  • riverdiverriverdiver Posts: 2,015 Captain
    chubasco wrote: »

    Water is right, with 9/11 Bush had far more warning.


    Could the 9/11 attack have been stopped, had the Bush team reacted with urgency to the warnings contained in all of those daily briefs? We can’t ever know. And that may be the most agonizing reality of all.

    If you bothered to read the article you linked, there was daily mention for months prior that OBL was determined to do "something". Your article failed to mention that briefs before Bush took office also mentioned daily that OBL was determined to do "something".

    There's no mention of details...who, how, when, where...and that's the fly in the ointment. There was daily intelligence month after month after month, year after year concerning plans to attack in the US or overseas. You want to blame someone, blame our fractured intelligence community that prior to 9/11 featured different intelligence agencies we know about (and sosme we don't) that didn't communicate with each other. And while Bush at least tried fixing it, they still don't communicate like they should.
  • SWFL_F1sh0nSWFL_F1sh0n Posts: 17,248 Officer
    riverdiver wrote: »
    If you bothered to read the article you linked, there was daily mention for months prior that OBL was determined to do "something". Your article failed to mention that briefs before Bush took office also mentioned daily that OBL was determined to do "something".

    There's no mention of details...who, how, when, where...and that's the fly in the ointment. There was daily intelligence month after month after month, year after year concerning plans to attack in the US or overseas. You want to blame someone, blame our fractured intelligence community that prior to 9/11 featured different intelligence agencies we know about (and sosme we don't) that didn't communicate with each other. And while Bush at least tried fixing it, they still don't communicate like they should.

    Take a look at the 8/6/2001 briefing. Attack imminent, use of aircraft, etc . .
    http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB116/pdb8-6-2001.pdf
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • TightLine904TightLine904 Posts: 409 Officer
    Take a look at the 8/6/2001 briefing. Attack imminent, use of aircraft, etc . .
    http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB116/pdb8-6-2001.pdf
    Ok,now show me anywhere in that briefing that says when,where.Was Bush supposed to use a magic crystal ball to know when and where so he could have avoided the attacks?Liberal ignorance continues to baffle me.
  • riverdiverriverdiver Posts: 2,015 Captain
    Take a look at the 8/6/2001 briefing. Attack imminent, use of aircraft, etc . .
    http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB116/pdb8-6-2001.pdf

    Did you even read what you linked?

    The "aircraft threat" you mention is in your own link as being investigated by the FBI since 1998.

    Since you felt it was important enough to look it up and link it, show the actionable intelligence from it that was ignored.
Sign In or Register to comment.