An independent inquiry into the attack on the United States diplomatic mission in Libya that killed four Americans on Sept. 11 sharply criticizes the State Department for a lack of seasoned security personnel and relying on untested local militias to safeguard the compound....
The investigation... also faulted State Department officials in Washington for ignoring requests from officials at the American Embassy in Tripoli for more guards and safety upgrades to the diplomatic mission.
The panel also blamed the State Department for waiting for specific warnings of imminent attacks to act rather than adapting security procedures and protocols to a deteriorating security environment...
Finally, the report also blamed two major State Department bureaus — diplomatic security and Near Eastern affairs — for failing to coordinate and plan adequate security at the mission. The panel also determined that a number of officials had shown poor leadership.
१८ डिसेंबर, २०१२
"Inquiry Into Libya Attack Is Sharply Critical of State Dept."
The NYT reports:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
३५ टिप्पण्या:
The panel also determined that a number of officials had shown poor leadership.
Please tell me Obama was one of them if not where the buck stopped. Yeah, blame the State!
Looking forward to hearing more about the decision making process that led to denying military intervention while the attack was taking place. Somebody who should have them as part of their job descrtiption was clearly lacking a pair of normal-sized brass balls.
I refuse to believe that Obama knew anything about the seriousness of what was happening at the time. I mean, he grabbed a plane for a campaign fundraiser the next day, didn't he? A normal human being just wouldn't do that.
At the 8:00 mark Bill Whittle offers his response on Benghazi had he been POTUS then. Out of the park!
H/T to USMCE8Ret.
Oh, now that the election is over we care? Why didn't any of this matter before the election when, you know, it mattered?
I don't care any more.
The panel also determined that a number of officials had shown poor leadership.
But the NYT will refuse to name them, or hold them to account, or God forbid demand an interview with them. From Hillary on down. She'll have to invent some more serious 'medical' excuses right quickly.
chickelit said...
I refuse to believe that Obama knew anything about the seriousness of what was happening at the time.
i'll buy that he was clueless before hand.
what i don't buy is his claim that he ordered everthing possible to be done to safegaurd the folks DURING the attack, yet his secdef says, they abandoned the mission, because it was too risky.
Every other normal human POTUS would have resonded the next like wilford Brimley:
Now we'll talk all day if you want to. But, come sundown, there's gonna be two things true that ain't true now. One is that the United States Department of Justice is goin' to know what in the good Christ - e'scuse me, Angie - is goin' on around here. And the other's I'm gonna have somebody's ass in muh briefcase.
Note how the inquiry and the NYT's reporting avoid the absolutely crucial matter of the White House's refusal to send any aid whatsoever to the Americans during the Benghazi attack.
Instead they ponders the measures that might have been taken before the attack. Which is all well and good, but evades the point.
Oh, BTW:
Impeach Obama.
Impeach Obama.
Incompetence and willful disregard aren't grounds for impeachment. I looked.
The panel, called an accountability review board, is led by Thomas R. Pickering, a veteran diplomat, and presented its report to the State Department on Monday
Notice how loosey-goosey the article is about who organized this here "accountability review board". Who does the board report to (in the sense of who's the boss not who gets the finished product)?
Basically, this is the State Dept. investigating the State Dept. Imagine what the report that comes out of a Congressional investigation is going to say!
So does the report say where Obama was for the 7 hour battle that went on in Benghazi and what he did?
They had a Spectre gunship in the air over the target and Choom said, "Hold your fire".
Damn straight they had shown poor leadership.
Eric said...
Impeach Obama.
Incompetence and willful disregard aren't grounds for impeachment. I looked.
I'll bet malfeasance, misfeasance, and dereliction of duty are.
Suddenly, regime change, delegated torture, arming cartels and terrorists, circumscribing rights, and account (not budget) deficits without representation are in vogue. What does a mortal god have to do to be impeached and removed from office? There must be an ulterior motive to merit his reelection.
There are precedents.
We're not even into the second term and things are going great.
"Secretary Clinton pick up the white courtesy phone"
Eric: According to the Constitution:
The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
High crimes and misdemeanors is plenty broad enough to impeach Obama for Benghazi.
Obama refused to protect Americans, including an American ambassador at an American embassy i.e. on American soil, under attack, then lied about it and misled the public afterward.
Nixon and Clinton were on the impeachment hook for far smaller matters.
Someone on this blog mentioned that there are three parts to Benghazi. The Before, the During, and the After. I don't know whether that as an original independent synthesis or not, but it's Brilliant
So now we know the Before. The State Department. Hang out the old Hag Hillary to dry. She needs some drying out.
Now, we need to get to the During.
Dante - A lot of people after Benghazi and all the wondering about terrorism, the big moment if the debate...and the mystery of it all as the facts emerged - mentally constructed a timeline.
When they looked at the timeline, 3 distinct elements - each a big mystery since Sept 11th - emerged.
1. Security problems at State and perhaps the CIA in the runup - while some fools still think that proper security will keep All Americans Perfectly Safe from a determined and intelligent enemy - there are mysteries on why common sense steps were not taken.
2. The events of the Islamoid attacks - if there was anything that could have been realistically done that was not done. Huge mystery because the people there that survived, the people in the military, CIA, and Obama's agencies and the inner circle at the WH are still remarkably silent, with few leaks happening. The facts are being tightly guarded.
3. The coverup. A lot of lies and misdirections from the Obama people, the Hillary people, Susan Rice, and Obama's reelection team.
Okay now what? The injury of Lidia's shark attack is a critical state? Oh dear, that sounds dreadful I hope she pulls through.
Diplomacy boils down to two principles:
1. How much do we have to pay you?
2. How many people do we have to kill?
chickelit said...
I refuse to believe that Obama knew anything about the seriousness of what was happening at the time.
Oh, come on...it is easy to believe. First, "all politics is local" [Tip Oneill]and Benghazi is not local. Next, the personnel in danger and who died were white. Finally, because of the first two points, he couldn't care or grasp any portent.
Well, dang...I guess I proved you right. Whoops :-)
No names were named, and no one is losing their job. Rather, the "system" failed. And, the implication that the people at the top of the "system" were innocent bystanders who got caught by the systemic failure, but otherwise did just fine.
One of the problems with the bureaucratic state is that organizations develop cultures, and both State and CIA have some of the most entrenched cultures. Hillary!'s predecessor there tried to get control of the department and couldn't, and the whole Libby/Armitage thing turned out to be infighting between these two organizations (with the VP's office taking the fall).
But, the reality is that Hillary! and her top people at State were responsible. They weren't innocent bystanders, because they had ultimate responsibility for kicking the department into line. She and they asked for the authority and power, and, thus, the responsibility that goes along with it.
What is a bit scary though is that the Dems sold themselves as being able to control this federal bureaucracy, and are typically considered better at it, if for no other reason than they believe in its efficacy and the benefits of central planning, at least more so than most Republicans. And, of course, a large majority of non-military government employees are Democrats.
But, at least with Obama and Hillary!, we have top management that refuses to get involved in actual management. Obama is an idea guy who likes the perks of the office, but not the drudgery of actually running the government. Important ideas like "Forward". And Hillary! was most likely too jet lagged to bother with the details of running her department and making its people do what they were ordered to do - except she most likely failed to order them. A crime of omission, and not commission.
The problem then of blaming the deaths on systemic failure is that if names aren't named, and heads don't roll, the system is never fixed. Rather, the bureaucratic system wins again. (And, because there is a bottom line in the military, heads do roll whenever we go to war, and the "system" is somewhat fixed as a result).
Impeach the first Affirmative Action president? Are you nuts? People who look like Obama's sons and brothers and uncles would burn cities down and rape every woman in sight. And, of course, it would be all whitey's fault.
Enjoy the decline, bitches!
Bruce Hayden ... I agree with your analysis regarding no names cited and the effect being no responsibility is assigned. I also agree with your evaluation of Obama and Hillary as ineffective non-leaders. Where i disagree is here ...
...because there is a bottom line in the military, heads do roll whenever we go to war, and the "system" is somewhat fixed as a result...
That is the theory, but in the past 20 years, not the reality. Name, if you can, any general, in command of a major war effort or even a CONUS administrative effort,that has been relieved for non-performance or incompetence?
I would like to know if there has been any change in how the Libyan oil industry works after the "war of liberation."
Any change in companies, ownerships, franchises, where the oil is going, etc. Whatever.
Aridog said...
That is the theory, but in the past 20 years, not the reality. Name, if you can, any general, in command of a major war effort or even a CONUS administrative effort,that has been relieved for non-performance or incompetence?
- a number of zipper failure reliefs.
- the USAF KC-X Tanker round 1 sole source lease got some jail time for a couple of SES's
- a couple of political reliefs in A-stan, mcKrystal and Fuller
I agree however with your point. few generals get fired for killing people, but on the other hand, at the field grade level, the zero defects policy seems in effect
The Drill SGT ...
Yeah, I'm familiar with one of the "zipper failure" reliefs, a general who diddled as many ladies under his command in Afghanistan as possible. One of the ladies he bedded was the wife of a subordinate of mine. However, he was not relieved for incompetence, his most obvious failure.
Not that it means diddly squat, but I don't believe for one second that Petraeus' adultery began after he left active service. Hogwash. Convenient, but hogwash.
McChrystal got careless with his pronounced affinity for publicity. Given his authorship of the present ROE's in Afghanistan, he should take a fair share of responsibility for the doubling of the KIA rate in the past 3+ years, along with Petraeus who essentially retained McChrystal's ROE protocols.
As for Field Grade ranks, you may be right that there is more performance based accountability...at least up to the Lieutenant Colonel [05] level.
But then we have Major Nidal Malik Hasan, wunderkind psychiatrist, who never had an honest good evaluation but got promoted anyway.
I find it depressing. An excellent article, from The Atlantic is linked on another blog with cogent commentary on the subject.
Let's see, we have had the devastating 911 FBI & Nat Security failings, the housing bubble and crash, the bank failures, Fast & Furious stupid but deadly laughingstock of a sting and now the Benghazi attack.
Only in Fast & Furious have fed employees been fired but that happened only after an election and very very quietly.
So basically, according to the rules of The Imperial City, there is nothing to see here re Benghazi.
I prefer the sharp criticism of pink slips.
Incompetence and willful disregard aren't grounds for impeachment. I looked.
Bullshit. Grounds for impeachment are whatever 218 Representatives and 67 Senators say they are.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा