What I find fascinating is that the lead up to the Iraq war, with the complete fabricated threat of “yellow cake” and “centrifuge” tanks or whatever they supposedly were, but were actually NOT, was never even a blip on the radar screen to republicans.
Cohen wrote a great op-ed, tongue and cheek, on the Benghazi Syndrome. Anyone remember all the investigations into Clinton? Is this the path we are headed down? Benghazi was a horrible tragedy, their has been enough investigations, we know there was a screw up and it isn’t about stupid talking points, it was about lack of security.
Benghazi Syndrome is a grave malady of the noggin, the symptoms of which are a compulsion to grossly exaggerate matters and to compare almost anything to Watergate (see Watergate Syndrome, DSM-IV). Patient Zero in this regard is Sen. Lindsey Graham, a usually affable Republican from South Carolina who has suggested that the Benghazi episode warrants an investigation by a special congressional committee, just like Iran-contra and — drum roll, please — Watergate.
As a nation we invaded Iraq under false pretenses , sacrificed thousands of American lives, spent untold BILIONS, and for what? To spread democracy. How is that working out, really great in Egypt, where the religious Muslim Brotherhood is now in control. Fabulous, just fabulous. To this day, I remain shocked that the Republicans showed NO interest in finding out how such a colossal mistake was made, how we ended up invading a country that had NOTHING to do with 9-11.
Now we have an event called Benghazi, a tragic event, one that should never be repeated in the future. Well, except of the multitude of other embassy’s that have been targeted and live lost in the past. Clearly, the risk is too high for Americans to be in countries that cannot protect our citizens who provide critical diplomacy outreach.
We have two Government agencies who have not, and probably will never, be cohesive, too much turf war. The CIA and State Dept. believe they do their jobs better than the other. Is anyone paying attention that the Benghazi site was a secret CIA outpost. Well, we all know now, great job on keeping top secret issues top secret…..NOT.
It is good to find out how this happened — who’s responsible for the inadequate security, etc. — and it is also good to hold the Obama administration accountable for putting out a misleading statement. But the record will show that a thorough report was, in fact, compiled. Its authors were Thomas Pickering, an esteemed retired diplomat, and Adm. Mike Mullen, an equally esteemed retired chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They found the standard mistakes and snafus — but no crime.
“Benghazi was a horrible tragedy, their has been enough investigations, we know there was a screw up and it isn’t about stupid talking points, it was about lack of security.”
First, the truth doesn’t require 12 revisions before it’s presented to the people. The truth was never presented to the people by those making the revisions.
While there was a report, and a hearing, there has never been an investigation. The fact is, the people were only allowed to hear the administration’s narrative, until the memos were obtained by Jonathan Karl from ABC news, and certain whistleblowers given an opportunity to testify before congress.
This wasn’t an “honest mistake”. This was dereliction of duty, and an intentional effort to cover things up, after the fact. This speaks directly to the fitness of our President as CinC (where was he while the attack was going on?) and our Former SecState as a potential future CinC (who denied the requests for additional security?)
This is about accountability, and so far, no one has been held accountable.
Like I said, thousands killed in Iraq, not a peep from Republicans.
Yes, the cover up clearly wasn’t so covered in this investigation http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/542494/report-on-benghazi-attack.pdf
I guess it’s only witch hunt republicans that count as real investigators.
Elena,
I read the document.. Whitewashed a bunch of stuff, and placed a ton of blame on the dead. Never explained why the Ambassador was in Benghazi, meeting with the Turks. Never explained why the blame was placed on a youtube video. Never explained why the offical account doesn’t comport with the Ambassador’s personal diary, obtained by a member of the AP. Nope. If all this info is “old news” why all the attention being paid by the MSM? Why are the accounts of those testifying now, so different from the official report?
I remember why people thought it was the video. The video caused demonstrations in other locations. There was a big stink because Romney accused the administration of apologizing to terrorists. Now who stirred that up, I have no idea. Radicals from that part of the world take disrespect seriously. Stupidly so, I might add, but that doesn’t make you any less dead.
“At this point, what difference does it make?”
Nobody cares about this except a few right wing nuts.
And (of late) ABC News, and of course, Elijah Cummings D-MD, top D on the House Oversite Panel, as questions regarding the construction of the “offical report” are raised:
http://www.htrnews.com/viewart/20130513/MAN0101/305140099
You mean those same “Wing Nuts” who were harrased by the IRS?
Is there an election or primary upcoming?
Steve, who do you think you’ll convert to your talking points? Most Americans are more interested in the latest news about Angelina Jolie, sports, their kiddos’ activities, or Honey Boo Boo. The political lines are already drawn for Repubs and Dems. Those of us who are independent of the partisan bull**** consider the source and the motive. You won’t win too many elections by being void of any idea save hating Obama.
@Censored bybvbl
“Those of us who are independent of the partisan bull**** consider the source and the motive.”
Censored…really, you do make me laugh. Seriously.
I don’t expect to convert anyone here. I do expect to make those that relentlessly carry water for this train-wreck of an adminstration work a bit harder.
The “Key Recommendations” in the unclassified version of the Accountability Review Board (ARB) report on Washington’s responsibilty for Benghazi could be summed up in just a couple of sentences: “Idiots, this problem was nothing new! Where was your leadership and common sense?!! Have you learned nothing since 1998 about mission security management?!!”
The USG began looking more seriously at mission security after the bombings in Beirut in the 1980’s. It was also in the 1980’s when our security agencies first began establishing dedicated counterterrorism units to go after the perps instead of continuing to depend on regular operational elements to track them down. Mission security per se became an even bigger issue after the attacks in 1998 on the embassies in Nairobi and Dar-es-Salaam, as well as attacks elsewhere. And no need to explain where that issue went after 9/11.
From my own personal experience in the field and in Washington, I would posit that Benghazi was absolutely inexcusable, especially given the location and recent history. A newly “liberated” country with an interim government having weak authority at best. A rebel movement which was not a unified army but a mix of local tribal militias and politicized groups, some of which were radical Islamist. Weapons floating loose all over the place. Intelligence reports warning us of the possibility of radical attacks on our missions. Local intelligence and security services in disarray and not truly under control of the central government. Our own security people on the ground in Tripoli, including the Ambassador himself, pleading with Washington for more security and then not only being refused but losing some of what they already had. This was a fatal and inexcusable screw up that, in my view, is squarely on the Washington leadership at the highest levels. No amount of talking about Bush and Iraq or trotting out lists of subsequent terrorist attacks on US missions can mitigate the atrocious decisions made in Washington in 2012 concerning Libya.
It still astounds me that the Obama administration made such an error, especially in Libya. The liberation of Libya was one of Obama’s top foreign affairs accomplishments. Kudos were abundant for US and NATO participation in the fall of that old and very cruel regime in the context of the so-called Arab Spring. Along with the death of Osama bin Laden, Obama could hold up Libya and genuinely claim “Mission accomplished!” But, it looks to me that, not unlike Bush after the fall of the old Iraqi regime, Washington did not have a solid second act plan for Libya and sort of wandered off to other things, leaving Ambassador Stevens and his team to deal with a very questionable in-country situation with regard to governance and security. And, when Stevens called desperately for help, the answers were inadequate. And now, instead of having a Libyan feather in his legacy cap, Obama has a Benghazi albatross hanging around his legacy neck . And, in my opinion, that albatross is around his neck in large part because Hillary Clinton either made a huge error herself or let a very unstable Libya get out of her field of vision and left all the work to people who proved to be inadequate to the real understanding of the situation.
I never recall reading that Chris Stevens pleaded for help.
Where does any culpability on the part of the CIA fall in this entire situation?
Security costs money. People had best be ready to part with it.
Additionally, it sounds like too many different organizations involved. State dept, CIA, military.
Answer me honestly please, did you not dislike Hillary Clinton before this situation happened? I know how you felt about the president but I don’t recall your feelings about the secretary of state.
@Steve Thomas
Be honest. Your main concern is to try to smear Hillary Clinton (the likely Dem. candidate and one that could likely kick any Repub’s butt next time around). Your party is devoid of any ideas other than “cut taxes”. It’s alienated just about every segment of society except old white Southern males. Look at what happened when Sheryl Bass get hoodwinked. Women got mad. Pick on Hillary Clinton at your peril. Meantime, work on some actual ideas for solving the country’s problems. Try a little bi-partisanship. Your national party should try to copy the local parties which have to work with a variety of constituents and actually solve problems.
Although I said this once before in another thread, I think it bears repeating: There are four issues here and it’s important to work one’s way through them objectively and carefully before one goes into full political mode: 1) was there any feasible measure that could have been taken once the attack started that might, without drawing in even more victims, have saved the lives of any of the outstanding Americans who died that night? 2) Was there error, and, if so, who has ultimate responsibility for that error, in failing to secure this facility in advance against this sort of attack; 3) are we doing the right things to provide adequate security for all out facilities overseas. The fourth issue has, as I have studied this more closely in the last few days, faded a bit. It is whether the manipulation of the Susan Rice talking points was politically motivate based on election pressures. I have pretty much concluded from combing through everything I can find that has been written on this and talking to a few of my friends (none of whom were directly involved and some of whom are retired) in both the intelligence and diplomatic communities, that the talking point issue is, indeed, a distraction. It appears that all the back and forth on those points was a bureaucratic process that found a lowest acceptable denominator between CIA and State, each of whom was trying to avoid bad PR for decisions about how the Benghazi Station, primarily a CIA operation, was run and protected. That’s a bad thing, to be sure, but after some initial skepticism, I’ve come around to the idea that everyone at State and everyone at CIA thought that the other was primarily responsible for the deaths at that station, that CIA was reluctant to say much about what they thought they knew about who did it, and in the back and forth as they tried to come to mutually acceptable talking points, detail after detail fell out until they left Ms. Rice with the most inane and uninformative talking points she could possibly have. David Brooks’ column today in the Times fortified my emerging appreciation of this point.
The first three questions are hugely important. The fourth is important if it can be shown that the vacillations over the content of the public talking points was, contrary to the opinion I hold for the moment at least, motivated by a desire on the part of campaign personnel to enhance the President’s electoral prospects. However, in considering the latter question, one ought also to consider that a clearly documented terror attack might have in fact enhanced an incumbent’s electoral standing in the weeks immediately preceding an election. Everyone knows that we will have terrorist attacks regardless of who is president, and US citizens tend to rally around a President who is facing a foreign crisis.
As I said before, getting detailed, well-analyzed, objective answers to these questions would be important. With those in hand, we might start a political discussion. What is so disappointing is that Congress has immediately gone into full shriek campaign mode with this issue and has rendered itself, by the histrionic displays of many of its members, institutionally incapable of providing clear, credible answers to the questions. Anything that is produced will likely be obscured by a thick, impenetrable layer of political (as in campaign-driven, as opposed to as in policy formulation) barnacles.
Scout, as usual, well-reasoned and objective. Standing ovation.
When you have intelligence reports warning of a threat; your own State security officers tell you that your security posture is way inadequate for the circumstances; and you repeatedly ask home base for help, only be to be told that some of what you now have is being taken away, you are “pleading” in the sense that you really want and need what you are asking for. Stevens was not a wimp. He was operating in Benghazi during the war and before the regime fell. I think he knew full well what he was facing in trying to do his job as Chief of Mission. To doubt him when he told you he needed help was, in my opinion, folly.
Who doubted him?
@Wolverine
May 13, 2013
Voters trust Clinton over GOP on Benghazi
PPP’s newest national poll finds that Republicans aren’t getting much traction with their focus on Benghazi over the last week. Voters trust Hillary Clinton over Congressional Republicans on the issue of Benghazi by a 49/39 margin and Clinton’s +8 net favorability rating at 52/44 is identical to what it was on our last national poll in late March. Meanwhile Congressional Republicans remain very unpopular with a 36/57 favorability rating.
Voters think Congress should be more focused on other major issues right now rather than Benghazi. By a 56/38 margin they say passing a comprehensive immigration reform bill is more important than continuing to focus on Benghazi, and by a 52/43 spread they think passing a bill requiring background checks for all gun sales should be a higher priority.
While voters overall may think Congress’ focus should be elsewhere there’s no doubt about how mad Republicans are about Benghazi. 41% say they consider this to be the biggest political scandal in American history to only 43% who disagree with that sentiment. Only 10% of Democrats and 20% of independents share that feeling. Republicans think by a 74/19 margin than Benghazi is a worse political scandal than Watergate, by a 74/12 margin that it’s worse than Teapot Dome, and by a 70/20 margin that it’s worse than Iran Contra.
One interesting thing about the voters who think Benghazi is the biggest political scandal in American history is that 39% of them don’t actually know where it is. 10% think it’s in Egypt, 9% in Iran, 6% in Cuba, 5% in Syria, 4% in Iraq, and 1% each in North Korea and Liberia with 4% not willing to venture a guess.
At any rate what we’re finding about last week’s Benghazi focus so far is that Republicans couldn’t be much madder about it, voters overall think Congress should be focused on other key issues, and Hillary Clinton’s poll numbers aren’t declining on account of it.
“http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/05/voters-trust-clinton-over-gop-on-benghazi.html”
Like I said, nobody cares. Despite all this hoopla, Hillary is still more popular and trustworthy than congressional republicans.
Above is from http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/05/voters-trust-clinton-over-gop-on-benghazi.html
The circumstances of Benghazi remind me of the 1998 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, attributed after the fact to Bin Laden. A truck bomb exploded near the towers and resulted in the deaths of nearly 20 service members.
There were no specific warnings of an impending attack, but the investigation later found that there were numerous indications that the base was vulnerable and under surveillance. The base commander was found to have taken inadequate measures for force protection, and as a result was denied his second star. He retired very quickly thereafter. So he was held accountable by Secretary Cohen as the responsible commander.
So here is a similar case that occurred during the Clinton administration. Hillary did not learn from the mistakes of the past, which makes her culpable. “Those who fail to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.”
That’s quite a leap. Hillary wasn’t in Benghazi at the time of the terrorist attack.
I am not sure if or where the CIA would have had any culpability in the Benghazi “consulate” affair. I can surmise that the CIA station chief probably backed up Stevens on the request for more mission security in Tripoli and Benghazi and that he may even have asked his Hqs to put in a word with State counterparts on the issue. I have no access to such info. It could be in the classified version of the ARB report. Overall mission security is the ultimate responsibility of the Ambassador working with his Diplomatic Security officers (RSO’s) and DS in Washington and they have the obligatory cooperation of all other US agencies in the mission as part of a country team. Just where that Benghazi annex (base) fit in the country team has yet to be explained by anyone; but I will posit that it was there with the full approval of State and the Ambassador after some strong negotiations. As for the security money, you learn to prioritize.
It really wasn’t even a consulate. It was a mission. The CIA had covert operations going on on their side of the house.
Moon, I’ll make no bones about it: I am not a Hillary fan and never have been. However, I must admit that I was pleasantly surprised that she did pretty well on a number of important issues at State. And I still think Obama wore her out by sending her far too often to do some of the face-to-face diplomatic chores that he should have done.
As far as a Benghazi goes, it makes no difference to me whom you may be. Been there, done that, had my own head in that kind of foreign noose. I have no sympathy whatsoever for bureaucratic incompetence or political bullshit in Washington which jeopardizes the lives of the people in our overseas missions. Kind of personal, you might say.
Disassociating herself from the sleazy, low-rent, greasy Obama regime is probably the smartest thing Hillary ever did. I’ll bet you dollars to doughnuts she knew that sooner or later the organized crime family at 1600 Pennsylvania would be caught doing something so corrupt that it couldn’t be ignored, like using the IRS to go after your political opponents.
Good for her.
@Moon-howler
The people in Washington who turned down his requests for security enhancements. If, as Hillary claimed to the Senate, those decisions were made below her pay grade, the person (or persons) who made them was a fool for not ensuring that the SecState knew about it and approved. Tripoli was not some minor, inconsequential post. It was very volatile and smack dab in the middle of the Arab Spring, which was (and still is) a front and center foreign policy issue for us.
Those were exactly her words? “Below her pay grade?”
Horse hockey, Scout. Find out if SecState actually released the refusal messages to Tripoli herself or if the individual who released them did so with the knowledge that SecState had been consulted and agreed to the responses. Yeah or nay to both questions under oath. Then you get a big part of the answer to your Question 2. “Histrionic displays” have no effect on that kind of public evidence.
As for those infamous official talking points, it certainly looks to me like Victoria Nuland was trying like Hell to cover State’s ass on that one. And I think she was under some serious higher level pressure to ramrod the other guys into agreeing to State’s truncated version of the talking points.
Wolve – on para. 1, that’s what I said. Get the facts. We don’t need the caterwauling that’s coming off of the Hill to do that kind of analysis.
re your para 2, I don’t doubt that there may have been energetic ass-cvoering going on between State and CIA between 11 Sept and the following weekend as the talking points were being developed. The question is why. At this point, my impression is that it has a lot more to do with each Department trying not to end up as the pinata when it thought the other more to blame. That’s not a good situation, but it’s considerably different than if the talking points were dumbed down under pressure from the campaign in an effort to enhance the Prez’s electoral chances. If it’s the latter, I’ll grab a torch and pitchfork and join the mob. Brooks column yesterday spends some time on this to good effect, in my opinion.
My question is…who refused to order cross border relief from Italy? And why was Africom relieved of command in the middle of all this? There were Marine Recon units 1 hour away in Italy. Those with more extensive Army and Marine and Special Forces backgrounds have some serious questions.
Well, Scout, I think you have the right word with regard to the fears at State at the time: pinata. And, when Nuland started up with the usual bureaucratic plea, i.e. reference to pressure from higher ups in her “building” (how many times did I hear that in my lifetime), my first thought was that the pinata belonged to Hillary Clinton and her close-in appointee advisory team. But, then, you can never discount the possibility that Nuland’s “building” was already getting pressure from another “building” in that town or was anticipating such pressure and trying desperately to stay ahead of the game. If we can get your listed questions answered, we should find that out somewhere along the line.
Moon — “Below her pay grade” I don’t think she said it quite that way. Just my gummint talk for describing such a situation. She claimed in so many words that the Libya mission security issues did not normally come up to her level but were handled by subordinate managers. Those people who were the first to appear before the Congress were very high subordinate managers concerned with security and admin affairs worldwide, and I still cannot believe that they or the top honchos for Near East political and diplomatic affairs failed to let the Secretary’s office know about the Libya situation, even if in a brief memo or a mention at a staff meeting. As I said, Libya was not some inconsequential mission outside the mainstream of foreign policy issues at the time. And Stevens was the man who had the welfare of our policy there in his accomplished and trusted hands. And, lest we forget, the requests for security enhancements concerned security of the main US mission in Tripoli as well as the satellite installations in Benghazi.
OK, Wolve. it should be easy enough, forensically, to get to the bottom of this. Having served a good bit in those precincts in my early years, I don’t find it hard to believe that there was a lot of jostling between State and CIA that had nothing to do with whomever was in the White House at the time. But, if there is evidence that Ms. Nuland was acting politically, rather than bureaucratically, it will come out in due course.
CS @0912: your question fits in my category 1 basket. One of the clinical inquiries (if we ever get a clinical inquiry) ought to be whether there was any capability that could have, in the time frame involved, saved lives. Knowing how difficult it is to throw together a rescue and extraction operation quickly, I won’t be surprised if it turns out that there really wasn’t any actual capability to intervene effectively in the time frames involved, particularly given the unknowns as the event unfolded (it is a common tactic in the Mideast to try to draw in response forces and then eliminate them as they arrive on the scene). If I’m right about this (and I may not be), it puts more pressure on the question as to whether there were significant errors of judgment (and who made them) in not hardening that outpost more and having stand-by rescue forces in place well prior to the event (my category 2 question).
Well, it may be that DOD, as Panetta promised in his testimony, has already addressed the failure to have rescue forces within striking distance during a real crisis or one that might be possible. Libya is apparently in a crisis right now, with former rebels manning guns and blocking the entrances of the foreign ministry and the justice ministry while voicing all kinds of gripes at the interim government. The French embassy in Tripoli was the object of a bombing a couple of weeks ago. The police station in Benghazi was bombed again, and last night the hospital in Benghazi was bombed, with numerous casualties. Tensions very high. The US Mission has ordered the departure of a number of “non-essential” personnel from Tripoli. And the Pentagon reportedly has certain military forces on high alert in Europe in case they are needed across the Med. It almost like the shade of Ambassador Stevens is saying: “I told you so.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-benghazi/2013/05/16/3baac71c-bcd1-11e2-9b09-1638acc3942e_story.html?hpid=z8
great comprehensive op-ed, I thought is was very fair in its criticism where there was merit.
Obviously Mr. Hicks has no clue, as a public servant and not a military person, that the idea that saving the ambassador was possible is woefully wrong.
Amen!