October 14, 2012

After the Benghazi attack: "We're going through a mission accomplished moment."

Here's Bob Woodward, today on "Fox News Sunday," talking about the what the Obama administration has said about the Benghazi attacks:
WOODWARD: There are lots of unanswered questions. And I love documents, and they released some documents in this, and if you go and look at the original request for more security, they say our policy, our goal here is to shift from an emergency footing to normalize the security relationship.

Now, this is in March, six, seven months ago. Anyone looking at that what say, wait a minute, read the document in which they say, oh, the situation is incredibly unstable. Well, why are you trying to normalize your security in a situation that's visibly unstable? You even acknowledge that.

So you've got a bad policy. And anyone looking at that would say, wait a minute; we are screwed up; we can't normalize here.
So that's the first problem. The second problem is, as soon as an ambassador is killed, the president should be more proactive and be out there. He can go, you know, five minutes in the White House briefing room and say this is really serious; we're going to get to the bottom of it; we don't have the answers. And all of this could have been nipped in the bud and it was not.

[MODERATOR CHRIS] WALLACE: And what do you make of the fact that, five days later, Susan Rice goes out and tells this story about a spontaneous protest, when we now know the State Department never thought there was a spontaneous protest? In fact, we know -- and they were in touch, in real time, with people on the ground in Benghazi on the 11th.

WOODWARD: I haven't -- you know, I don't think we know exactly why she did that or what was going on. But the key... is, two weeks later, the president's at the U.N. and citing this YouTube video, I guess half a dozen times. That, as we now know, had virtually nothing to do with what happened in Benghazi.
Now, look at what Senator Lindsey Graham said on "Face the Nation":
SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM: Well, the facts are there was never a riot. The-- the night in question, September 11th, Ambassador Stevens was being visited by the Turkish ambassador that wasn't the sole around the compound and the coordinated attack lasted for hours with al Qaeda-associated militia. My belief is that that was known by the administration within twenty-four hours and, quite frankly, Susan Rice, on your show on September 16th, the President on the 18th and the 25th, kept talking about an attack inspired by a video. They're trying to sell a narrative, quite frankly, that the Mid East, the wars are receding and al Qaeda has been dismantled, and to admit that our embassy was attacked by al Qaeda operatives and Libya leading from behind didn't work I think undercuts that narrative. They never believed that media would investigate. Congress was out of session, and this caught up with them. I think they've been misleading us, but it finally caught up with them.

... Al Qaeda is alive. Bin Laden may be dead. Al Qaeda is alive and they're counter-attacking throughout the entire region. And the truth is that the foreign policy choices of President Obama is allowing the region to come unraveled.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Where did you get this information that led you to this conclusion? Did you talk to officials there? Did you talk to people in the CIA? Did you talk to people in the administration? How are you so convinced of-- of what you have just stated?

SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM: The intelligence community on the ground in Libya has told Senator Corker and myself that within twenty-four hours, they communicated up to Washington that this was a terrorist attack. The president of Libya on the same date said it was a terrorist attack. The video of the compound shows that there was nobody at the Benghazi consulate. There was never a group to riot. And the evidence is overwhelming, and the idea that it was spawned by a- a video and a riot would be-- hold the administration blameless. They said it was a copycat of Cairo. It wasn't a copycat. It was a sustained attack that lasted for six or eight hours, using heavy weapons which undercuts the idea that al-- al Qaeda has been dismantled and on the run and it certainly undercuts the idea that our policy choices in Libya have not going after the militia, not helping the Libyans training the national army were good choices.
Shieffer plays video of Susan Rice, 5 days after the attack, saying "We did not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned."
SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM: Well, it's not just Susan Rice. The President of the United States said that it was the result of a video on David Letterman two days later. And the facts are very clear. There was never a riot. There was never a group of people around the embassy. It was a coordinated terrorist attack that took hours. Patrick Kennedy from the State Department briefed congressional staffers the day after the attack saying it was a terrorist attack. The next day after she was on your show, the-- the counterterrorism deputy said it was a terrorist attack and the President after that went on national TV The View and David Letterman talking about we're not sure if this was inspired by a video, a hateful video.
Amazing that Obama was doing this on "Letterman" and "The View" — the day after the attack!
The reason they're trying to sell this, if it is true it was an al Qaeda-inspired attack that was coordinated involving heavy weapons that lasted six-to-eight hours and our embassy consulate was so exposed and they had denied numerous requests to reinforce it, is Exhibit A of a failed foreign policy. I have seen this movie before. I went to Iraq in 2004 and everybody told me things are going fine. This is just a few dead-enders. Iraq was falling apart and you couldn't get the truth from the Bush administration. The Mid East is falling apart, and they're trying to spin what happened in Libya because the truth of the matter is al Qaeda is alive and well and counter-attacking.

Iraq, they have been doubling of al Qaeda operatives in Iraq since we left, twenty-five hundred. Iran is flying over Iraqi air space to deliver weapons to Syria. Syria's becoming thirty thousand people dead and foreign fighters moving into Syria. The Iranians have quadrupled the amount of enriched uranium they have to build bombs, as the Obama administration talks to them. This whole region is about to explode, al Qaeda is on the march. Northern Mali is now under the control of radical Islamists that make the Taliban look like choir boys. So they're trying to sell something, (INDISTINCT) the facts on the ground will not justify. When John Kerry said at the Democratic National Convention ask bin Laden is he better off. They're trying to spike the ball after killing bin Laden create a false narrative about the true state of al Qaeda and it all caught up with them in Libya.
Connect what Woodward and Graham said. Woodward said the administration withheld security from Libya because they wanted to make things look normal, to convey a message that the conflict had wound down. And Graham is saying the video story was a message — a narrative — a story that they wanted to tell. It was the story that al Qaeda is vanquished, that the mission is accomplished.

Now, here's Congressman Darrell Issa, also on "Face the Nation." He was refuting the Democratic talking point that attributes lack of security to a GOP budget cut.
REPRESENTATIVE DARRELL ISSA (Government Reform & Oversight Committee Chairman): There's 2.2 billion in discretionary reprogrammable money that wasn't used. The fact is they are making a decision not to put security in because they don't want the presence of security
That's what Woodward said above.
In our hearing, and in testimony, we were told they removed their diplomatic plates because they wanted to be invisible. They didn't put any markings on this building that was attacked because they didn't want to have people know they were. That is not how you do security. After there was a twelve-foot hole blown in the wall of this compound, all they did was rebuild the wall, no new reinforcement, no kind of capability to protect somebody inside....

This is not very Republican, if you will, but when President George W. Bush went aboard an aircraft carrier and said, "mission accomplished" I listened rightfully so to people saying, look, but there's still problems, and they're still dying, and quite frankly, things got worse in many ways after that famous statement.

.... We're going through a mission accomplished moment.
ADDED: After Graham and Issa's powerful interviews, Schieffer informed us that the administration "declined" to send any onto the show to defend its position. So for the Democratic perspective, they had Congressman Elijah Cummings, who is the ranking Democrat on Issa's committee.
REPRESENTATIVE ELIJAH CUMMINGS: Bob, first of all, what happened to Ambassador Stevens and the other three public servants was...
I paused the recording and said: "He's about to say "tragedy.'"
... indeed a horrible tragedy. 
Before unpausing, Meade and I enumerated the talking points we thought he was about to deliver. The first was it was a tragedy, which you can see he said. We had 5 total, and Meade held the 5 fingers of his left hand aloft so he could tick them off. And Cummings said each one, even using the very words we thought he'd say (words other Democrats, notably Biden at the debate, had already used):
We will search their killers down and bring them to justice. The one thing we must not do, though, Bob, is make this out to be a-- and treated like a political football, and I think that's basically what's happening. We have a situation where we rushed to a hearing. We don't have substantial evidence, yet. We're still gathering evidence, coming to conclusions, and looking in search of facts and this is what has happened. But, again, we-- there's a lot to be answered. And I think you asked the right questions. Yeah, there are a lot of things that we need to address. But this is not the way to do. We have an FBI hearing going on, investigation going on, and Hillary Clinton, Secretary Clinton, has appointed an accountability review board to look at this. And we will get the answers. But the way we're doing it, I think, is basically based on a campaign schedule, trying to give Romney some talking points
Schieffer pummeled him with a great question:
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, let me just ask you this, Congressman, and I say this with all respect--if there were a car wreck here on M. Street outside my office and I looked out the window and saw a car wreck out there, I wouldn't have to wait till the cops came to know it was a car wreck. I mean it was a car wreck. There were two dozen people in that compound there. They had windows. They could look out the window. They could see that there was no demonstration going on. And, yet, it was not until last week that the administration admitted that this was a preplanned terrorist attack and not a spontaneous demonstration.
What can he say? Something about "an evolving situation," which is just absurd, because how does the story of the anti-YouTube-video demonstration ever get started? You start with nothing — don't you? — and then add details. Schieffer says "well" and Cummings goes into spluttering mode:
But, Bob, Bob, you know, I just listened to that interview, both of those interviews, and-- and this conspiracy stuff is kind of ridiculous, to be honest with you. 
This sounds desperate. Graham and Issa were articulate, and all Cummings has is the accusation that their legitimate questions are "conspiracy stuff" and "a witch-hunt." It's insulting and lame.

220 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 220 of 220
McTriumph said...

Cedarford
If you refer Mccain and Graham as neocons, you don't know what a "neocon" is.

McTriumph said...

Well, we should stop discussing Obama's Libya "bump in the road" because it was agreed on MSNBC's Morning Joe it's a dead issue. Oh, and Obama's mideast policy is working great because there are protest for the shot girl. All is well.

Matt Sablan said...

My thoughts are that if the policy were working well, they wouldn't shoot girls for wanting education (or is this a different shot little girl?)

Cedarford said...

McTriumph - Not all neocons are former Jewish marxists that turned to their right over love of Israel. Or the sons of those turned Marxists.

Many prominent goyim are also neocons. War thirsty people that want more wars in Muslim countries from three very fallacious ideas:

1. We can turn Muslim countries pro-Israel and pro-West by nation building them to the love and respect for us from the Noble local freedom lovers. After, of course, we invade and occupy them at borrowed trillions in cost.

2. We cannot control Islamoid terror associated with the Great Islamic Revival without invading and occupying over a dozen "sanctuary nations". All to prevent a few thousand low tech Islamoid terrorists from having a "safe base". So that is why Neocons talk about the unfinished business of sending our "Hero soldiers" into a dozen new wars and occupations in places like Somalia, Yemen, Libya, now Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Mali, Syria, Lebanon, Iran (Iran - which would be a major conflict on the level of Vietnam or Korea...not a pissy little thing like Iraq or Afghanistan...100s of thousands of casualties)
BTW, few if any Neocons ever served in the military...but every solution to every problem seems to involve "The Heroes" as they call them, the ranks of which few Neocons left the Ivies to join

3. Islamoid Evildoers making WMD in caves that will destroy us all unless we invade nations!!
Unfortunately, the Neocon strategy involved making the Pakis our special friends as they hid Binnie, took billions, and increased their nuke arsenal 35% under Dubya Bush.
And made Iraq, once Irans greatest enemy, into an Iranian ally. So the Iranians well know that Iraq shiites now have their back and can continue as far as they wish to go on their nuke program as long as they do not cross the threshold of a futile Israeli attack that could drag the US into finish what the Zionists start. And because of Iraq, they know the US public is sick of the Neocon's eternal wars - and in no mood to let the Neocons start new wars without serious conflict and debate about it within America.

Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...

Inga thinks Nokoula was sent to make Obama look bad. Really. This is what she thinks.

A private citizen who made an obscure video is the source for all that is wrong in the world. Amazing. It's a conspiracy!

Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...

Cedarford - you are, for the most part, full of crap.

Seeing Red said...

Via Belmont Club:

Sources have told the Daily Telegraph that just five unarmed locally hired Libyans were placed on duty at the compound on eight-hour shifts under a deal that fell outside the State Department’s global security contracting system.

Blue Mountain, the Camarthen firm that won a $387,000 (£241,000) one year contract from the US State Department to protect the compound in May, sent just one British employee, recruited from the celebrity bodyguard circuit, to oversee the work …

“We were in uniform, unarmed except for taser guns and handcuffs, and had been told in the case of attack to muster by the swimming pool,” he said. “I was separated from the others and couldn’t get anywhere near the swimming pool before I was shot.”

Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...

Fresh Scapegoats

Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...

How is the Obama White House going to fit the entire State Department and the intelligence community under the bus?

Last month’s Benghazi fiasco saw four Americans — including our ambassador to Libya — murdered by elements of al Qaeda in a military-style assault timed to coincide with the 11th anniversary of 9/11.

The weeks afterward saw the administration blaming a video that, even the White House now admits, had nothing to do with it.

Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...

...
State has already started the pushback. It has pointedly released the transcript of an Oct. 9 media briefing in which Brad Klapper of the Associated Press asks what “led officials to believe for the first several days that this was prompted by protests against the video?”

Someone described only as “Senior State Department Official Two” answers, “That is a question you would have to ask others. That was not our conclusion.”

Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...

The reasons for this denial may be best known to campaign guru David Axelrod. After all, the administration’s only indisputable foreign-policy triumph — the killing of Osama bin Laden — would be in serious jeopardy were Obama and Biden to publicly admit that the Libyan attacks were in part retaliation for bin Laden’s death and the ongoing US drone strikes in Yemen and elsewhere.

No wait! It was Nokoula! A shadowy Character! A private US citzen and his pathetic video. He's out to get Obama. How dare he make Obama look bad. Or something. Nevermind reality. It was Nokoula.

Aridog said...

... what I heard today was Lindsey Graham interviewing for Secretary of State in Romney's Cabinet.

Wow. Now wouldn't that make The Crack Emcee's foreboding predictions correct!

Vote for real change...get more of the same. Help!

grackle said...

I've read many policy guidelines in my day ...[snip] ... I usually kicked them back upstairs with a memo asking for specifics ... my butt was covered ...

Ditto. I went one step further, upon retirement, I made back up copies of every message and document pertaining to me, in any way, from all sources & servers, on a personal external HDD and took it home with me. I swill say that it has proven provident on my behalf.

mdgiles said...

"You do bank fraud and Identity theft using the internet and through a series of false IDs used to perpetrate the con scam - you don't get the right to use false ID or the internet."

It just hit me how incredibly stupid that is. Many people today get their news through the internet. Or communicate through the internet. Or get their entertainment through the internet. if you were convicted of mail fraud, would part of your sentence be that you could never write a letter again. Is emailing your family a violation of his probation? So many people are in such a hurry to shove their heads up Obama's rear end that they never seem to give any thought to what they're agreeing to. Think. So the trailer for a film this guy supposedly made is on the internet. Is the assumption immediately, that he placed it there? How many advertisers for films automatically put trailers on the internet these days.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Inga:

Pointing to the presumed filmaker's prior record and presumed parole violation does not make this no longer a problem--for free speech or for the President. Because what you're doing is providing "context"; ok, but then there is more context, namely, the whole business of maniacal mobs threatening chaos if we don't roll back freedom of speech, AND the White House going along with that to a significant degree.

And, yes, they did. The White House tried to pressure Google, and they sent the general to make a phone call to pressure the presumed author of the offending speech.

In THAT context, then, it is entirely reasonable to find it AWFULLY convenient that a parole violation was so ready to hand.

I submit when it's a contest between the giant boot stomping on someone much smaller, the burden of showing why--and of demonstrating that its above-board--ought toile with the one doing the stomping. Because there is no reasonable person who would say, the freedom of the government to deal with parole violations is threatened. But can reasonable people honestly say they don't see perils mounting for free speech?

sonicfrog said...

Mark, I just posted this on my blog this morning.... Great minds, I guess!

Lets me get this straight. According to many in the media, and beyond, the attacks on 9/11 were Bush’s fault because there was some intelligence that something big was going to happen, and even thought there was no specificity at all about the attacks on the WTC, this is Bush’s failings. Bush and his team failed to connect the dots, as it were. Given the lack of actionable evidence concerning a specific target for the 9/11 attacks, one has to ask exactly what could have been done. That said, it’s not beyond the scope of things to say, in retrospect, it could have been handled better.

Fast forward eleven years. The current President and his Defense Department staff not only failed to provide any security to the embassy in Beghazi after they expressed concerns about a possible attack, but, after the attack actually did happen, resulting in the deaths of four Americans, the administration floats a bogus story about the attacks being the result of unrest over an anti-muslim video, knowingly lying about the real reason for the terrorist attacks on the embassy.

Yet, you don’t hear the same criticism about the current administration concerning this President and his administration.

Exactly how does that work?

PatCA said...

Cedarford, there are many, many people on the streets of L.A. who are parole violators. No one thinks twice about it, except if they get stopped for a traffic violation or commit another crime.

Nakoula was singled out to investigate his parole status; they admitted they had no prior knowledge that he did violate and still don't. He is accused of lying to get a driver's license and lying to investigators about making the move, which might or might not be a violation.

David R. Graham said...

"Bush's Mission Accomplished referred to the carrier's mission, not the media spin of it."

The carrier commander's Mission Accomplished banner referred to the carrier's mission, not to Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Legacy media D operatives with bylines lied.

Epiphyte - said...

"Why did that video become the explanation for the attack?"

Because Obama is trying to woo the muslim brotherhod and the imposition of world wide blasphemy laws is their primary foreign policy (and every other) objective. Achieving visible submission to islamic law is who they are and what want to do, period. Plus Obama promised as much when he and HRC agreed to "shame" defamatory speech against islam per UNHRC resolution 16/18 and the Istanbul process.

Aridog said...

Epiphyte - said...

Answering: "Why did that video become the explanation for the attack?"

Because Obama is trying to woo the muslim brotherhod and the imposition of world wide blasphemy laws is their primary foreign policy (and every other) objective.

Need to add that Obama is almost totally ignorant of what every day Arab Muslims want, especially those immigrating to the USA. It is astounding ignorance.

To this day, now over a month, I have yet to talk to anyone among the 50,000+ I live with that says anything...anything at all...about that video published in July.

When the most senior military man in the USA, General Martin Dempsey decides to call a rabble rousing preacher-man from Florida, on 12 September, a guy with almost no following, about the video, you must know the spin is the game. Reuters was already out with photos and videos....no mystery about what happened, until the spin began.

Now let me give you some measure of this pastor Terry Jones...when he shows up here, as he did last week, again, with his drivel he draws fewer than 50 on-lookers, half of them coincidental. Even the major media skip his events now.

Now THAT is the guy General Dempsey just happens to decide to phone up on the matters in the Middle East. Only one purpose is possible, the skinny little Koran burner still had an audience. Whoops. He doesn't.

Anonymous said...

Note that the first impulse of the dems was to respond with lawfare rather than warfare. Which they do whenever they want to silence discussion at least until after some event (esp. elections).

Amazingly bad. Shades of Tehran and Mr. Carter. Save I don't remember Mr. C playing these games. We've yet to see a retraction on the video and Cairo. Guess how many of those rioters (calling out "we are all Osama" as they attacked the Egyptian embassy) have phones or access to the internet capable of looking at pictures, much less videos. I suspect, like Fast-and-Furious, that when the truth comes out this was actually a pre-packaged dem response (anything happens find something else to blame other than a failed policy - with other goals - like suppressing criticism of the jihadi savages vice celebrating free speech). Even better, we lean on a minority Copt who have more than enough valid grievances to justify their protest, in whatever form.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 220 of 220   Newer› Newest»