JMS's Chronology of the Bengazi Raid and "cover-up"

[Thiebear]

Fema / Army Corpe of Engineers / Govenor's work together to asses the situation and come up with the capital to fix it.
The Crisis reaction team in the pentagon keeps all of the Generals / Secretary's in the loop with Top Secret Docs on everything.
I used to run those hallways... it's a big deal under EVERY Presidency.

[JMS]

Fema / Army Corpe of Engineers / Govenor's work together to asses the situation and come up with the capital to fix it.
The Crisis reaction team in the pentagon keeps all of the Generals / Secretary's in the loop with Top Secret Docs on everything.
I used to run those hallways... it's a big deal under EVERY Presidency.

FEMA today interfaces with more than a hundred federal agencies... Yes it's a pretty big deal under every presidency, especially during a disaster... But not nearly as big a deal under every presidency between disasters...

One President had the FEMA director sitting in on his cabinet meetings. and significantly increased it's budget, while appointing a man who had a solid background in disaster relief and state government to be in charge.
I'm not saying he did this for altuistic reasons... I personally think he did it because he saw FEMA's short comings during the previous administration cost the President a second term, and this president was politically pretty savy.
.
A second President reduced FEMA's prominence by removing it from the cabinet, took away it's independence by putting it inside another organization, dramatically cut it's budget and staffing( while increasing the over all
budget significantly for the federal government), and finally appointed a guy to be in charge who's only leadership role was in running a horse show across his entire career.

No not all administrations treat FEMA similarly, nor do they have similar expectations for FEMA's mission during natural disasters. Mitt Romney for example has called for dissolving FEMA, Obama increased FEMA's budget
in a time when his overall federal budget stayed roughly the same.

This ties directly to a neo-con root conservative truism. The federal government can't do anything well, so why bother to appoint competent people and our spending choices don't matter. The facts are with competent leadership FEMA has done pretty well for itself under the leadership of either party when that leadership doesn't set out to have it fail.

[Redskins Diehard]

Imagine another Blackhawk Down only this time in Benghazi. It is too easy to armchair quarterback this thing from 15,000 miles and 2 months away, but there is no telling what greater havok could have been brought about with a single rpg.

So what mistakes do you think were made in Mogadishu that we would have been at risk of repeating there? There are a lot of comparisons that can be made. Most of them that I see that are problematic are concerning the resources that were in place before the action ever was initiated. As Garrison said in the movie...once the first helicopter went down in Mogadishu we lost the initiative. I think the same can be said in Benghazi. Once the first shots were fired the engagement was no longer on our terms. And in my opinion at that point you deal with the possibility of a single RPG. We absolutely don't leave them there to die because we are worried about what may happen to the rescue element.

---------- Post added November-2nd-2012 at 03:55 PM ----------

I'm not saying that the CIA screwed up (or didn't screw up). I'm saying that the fact that covert CIA operation are intertwined in this situation is the reason that information is not coming out as quickly as some people want.

It's not a cover-up of some amorphous wrongdoing by the Administration that is causing any delay, it's the usual "don't expose what our covert ops are doing" secrecy. Fox is essentially demanding that we undercut our covert efforts in the Middle East to satisfy their partisanship.

Or so it appears to me right now.

Well you may be right. But the fact that it is already out. And was out pretty early speaks to how covert this op was. Similar to the covert drone program that nobody knows about.

[AsburySkinsFan]

So what mistakes do you think were made in Mogadishu that we would have been at risk of repeating there? There are a lot of comparisons that can be made. Most of them that I see that are problematic are concerning the resources that were in place before the action ever was initiated. As Garrison said in the movie...once the first helicopter went down in Mogadishu we lost the initiative. I think the same can be said in Benghazi. Once the first shots were fired the engagement was no longer on our terms. And in my opinion at that point you deal with the possibility of a single RPG. We absolutely don't leave them there to die because we are worried about what may happen to the rescue element.

Again, that's easy to say now, we have no idea what information they had on hand in real time.

[Redskins Diehard]

Again, that's easy to say now, we have no idea what information they had on hand in real time.

They new that the consulate was under attack and that Americans were in danger. The RSO made the decision to move to the safe room very early from one of the timelines I saw. At that point, in my opinion at least, our hand has been forced. You commit what you have to rescue those at risk. The monday morning quarterbacking then is to discuss whether or not there should have been more assets in Benghazi, in Tripoli, off the coast, whatever. That was one of the big issues with Mogadishu right? No resources on hand to to execute the mission that needed to be executed. That is why we had to use Pakistani and Malaysian forces to rescue our guys...or try to anyway.

[AsburySkinsFan]

They new that the consulate was under attack and that Americans were in danger. The RSO made the decision to move to the safe room very early from one of the timelines I saw. At that point, in my opinion at least, our hand has been forced. You commit what you have to rescue those at risk. The monday morning quarterbacking then is to discuss whether or not there should have been more assets in Benghazi, in Tripoli, off the coast, whatever. That was one of the big issues with Mogadishu right? No resources on hand to to execute the mission that needed to be executed. That is why we had to use Pakistani and Malaysian forces to rescue our guys...or try to anyway.

Seriously? No matter what you have, you blindly throw it at an unknown situation?! Really? That is a recipe for disaster, and would get MORE people killed, and be a bigger liability.

[btfoom]

Again, that's easy to say now, we have no idea what information they had on hand in real time.

It appears that some folks have information regarding real time information:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...k-sources-say/
EXCLUSIVE: CIA operators were denied request for help during Benghazi attack, sources say

By Jennifer Griffin

Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later on the annex itself was denied by the CIA chain of command -- who also told the CIA operators twice to "stand down" rather than help the ambassador's team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz2B6DO0lkL

If you don't believe/like foxnews, there is this:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...ult-unfolding/
Email Alerts Describe 9/11 Benghazi Consulate Assault Unfolding

A series of email alerts sent as Obama administration officials monitored the attack on the U.S consulate in Benghazi last month are the latest to shine light on the chaotic events that culminated in the death of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

The names of the individual recipients of the emails, first reported by CBS News but independently obtained by ABC News Tuesday evening, are redacted. A source who requested anonymity said it appears they are sent by the State Department Operations Center to distribution lists and email accounts for the top national security officials at the State Department, Pentagon, the FBI, the White House Situation Room and the office of the Director of National Intelligence.

The first email, with a subject line of “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack,” sent at 4:05 PM about 25 minutes after the attack began, describes an assault on the compound by 20 armed people.<rest at link>

So, there is information out there. The sad part is that this information, along with lots of other information regarding this attack, should have been public weeks ago.

Personally, I agree almost 100% with this Chicago Tribune writer:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...instream-media

If you want to understand why conservatives have lost faith in the so-called mainstream media, you need to ponder the question: Where is the Benghazi feeding frenzy?

Unlike some of my colleagues on the right, I don't think there's a conspiracy at work. Rather, I think journalists tend to act on their instincts (some even brag about this; you could look it up). And, collectively, the mainstream media's instincts run liberal, making groupthink inevitable. <rest at link>

It is a very interesting perspective by a writer who isn't taking shots at either side. He's taking shots at the media in general and how they decide to cover/not cover stories.

[Redskins Diehard]

Seriously? No matter what you have, you blindly throw it at an unknown situation?! Really? That is a recipe for disaster, and would get MORE people killed, and be a bigger liability.

There was UAV coverage. There was reporting from the Consulate in distress. It is not "blindly" throwing anything into an "unknown" situation. Second of all...you have an Ambassador of the United States of America in distress. So yes, you commit resources to securing him. And I am not sure what kind of "liability" you are talking about that would be created. Perhaps you can expound on that

[Predicto]

Personally, I agree almost 100% with this Chicago Tribune writer:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...instream-media

If you want to understand why conservatives have lost faith in the so-called mainstream media, you need to ponder the question: Where is the Benghazi feeding frenzy?

Unlike some of my colleagues on the right, I don't think there's a conspiracy at work. Rather, I think journalists tend to act on their instincts (some even brag about this; you could look it up). And, collectively, the mainstream media's instincts run liberal, making groupthink inevitable. <rest at link>

It is a very interesting perspective by a writer who isn't taking shots at either side. He's taking shots at the media in general and how they decide to cover/not cover stories.

"It's a very interesting perspective by a writer who isn't taking shots at either side?"

What the? It's written by Jonah Goldberg. The author of "Liberal Fascism - The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning." The guy who has convinced millions of gullible conservatives that the Nazis were liberals.

That clown is perhaps the most rabidly partisan man in America today.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

"It's a very interesting perspective by a writer who isn't taking shots at either side?"

What the? It's written by Jonah Goldberg. The author of "Liberal Fascism - The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning." The guy who has convinced millions of gullible conservatives that the Nazis were liberals.

That clown is perhaps the most rabidly partisan man in America today.

Not to mention he is Lucianne Goldberg's son, who is as nasty a right-wing operative as this country as ever produced.

[LadySkinsFan]

"Where is the Benghazi feeding frenzy?"

Over on Fox News, all day every day.

[AsburySkinsFan]

There was UAV coverage. There was reporting from the Consulate in distress. It is not "blindly" throwing anything into an "unknown" situation. Second of all...you have an Ambassador of the United States of America in distress. So yes, you commit resources to securing him. And I am not sure what kind of "liability" you are talking about that would be created. Perhaps you can expound on that

Sorry, but I all too clearly remember the disaster that was Blackhawk Down. You want liabilities, try watching blackhawks fall out of the sky when they're sent into an LZ blind.

*edit
Quite frankly the whole conspiracy theory crap has worn out its welcome, the Right is foaming at the mouth at the fantasy that Obama would have sat in the Situation room and watched them die while munching on popcorn. It is utter BS, but they hate him so much that they can't see anything else. To that I ask, where were the Joint Chiefs? Where was the CIA? Where was Sec State? If the Right thinks for a minute that Obama would have called off the dogs while the Joint Chiefs were calling for them to go in then they're in serious need of a frontal lobotomy. If such were the case we'd be seeing resignations across the board right now, but we aren't.

[Thiebear]

JMS: Since you asked for a "reputable" source (I would ask you don't use the Washington Post Opinion pieces though)

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_1...ecurity-staff/
(CBS News) The former head of a Special Forces "Site Security Team" in Libya tells CBS News that in spite of multiple pleas from himself and other U.S. security officials on the ground for "more, not less" security personnel, the State Department removed as many as 34 people from the country in the six months before the terrorist attack in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others.


Lt. Col. Andy Wood will appear this week at a House Oversight Committee hearing that will examine security decisions leading up to the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi.


Speaking to CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson, Wood said when he found out that his own 16-member team and a six-member State Department elite force were being pulled from Tripoli in August - about a month before the assault in Benghazi - he felt, "like we were being asked to play the piano with two fingers. There was concern amongst the entire embassy staff."



---------- Post added November-2nd-2012 at 06:38 PM ----------

Sorry, but I all too clearly remember the disaster that was Blackhawk Down. You want liabilities, try watching blackhawks fall out of the sky when they're sent into an LZ blind.

*edit
Quite frankly the whole conspiracy theory crap has worn out its welcome, the Right is foaming at the mouth at the fantasy that Obama would have sat in the Situation room and watched them die while munching on popcorn. It is utter BS, but they hate him so much that they can't see anything else. To that I ask, where were the Joint Chiefs? Where was the CIA? Where was Sec State? If the Right thinks for a minute that Obama would have called off the dogs while the Joint Chiefs were calling for them to go in then they're in serious need of a frontal lobotomy. If such were the case we'd be seeing resignations across the board right now, but we aren't.

Black Hawk down also showed that a few US military forces can handle thousands... (lets give our boys credit)
Could we not be sick and tired of something that killed out boys and we haven't had the first real report yet? I mean really.
A 13yr old can decimate the explanations given so far... If they died protecting others they need to be decorated.

Whew, this is a tough website lately to post things...

[Redskins Diehard]

Sorry, but I all too clearly remember the disaster that was Blackhawk Down. You want liabilities, try watching blackhawks fall out of the sky when they're sent into an LZ blind.

*edit
Quite frankly the whole conspiracy theory crap has worn out its welcome, the Right is foaming at the mouth at the fantasy that Obama would have sat in the Situation room and watched them die while munching on popcorn. It is utter BS, but they hate him so much that they can't see anything else. To that I ask, where were the Joint Chiefs? Where was the CIA? Where was Sec State? If the Right thinks for a minute that Obama would have called off the dogs while the Joint Chiefs were calling for them to go in then they're in serious need of a frontal lobotomy. If such were the case we'd be seeing resignations across the board right now, but we aren't.

Wait so you are asserting that Blackhawk helicopters were sent in to "LZ's blind" and THAT is the what was the lesson learned from Mogadishu? That was the disaster? Are you saying that they were shot down as part of a hasty rescue mission? I have had the privilege of sitting in on "lessons learned" multiple times regarding this mission and I have never heard that mentioned. Lots of stuff went wrong. But "blackhawks flying blind into LZ's" has never been brought up.

It seems you are making conflicting arguments here. That it would be unwise to send in a QRF but also that the President wouldn't just watch this happen. My thought is that there really was no plan to respond to this situation. There was no defined QRF and that in all likelihood anything not in Banghazi when it all started would have been of little help in saving the Ambassador. Much like in Mogadishu the resources were not there to respond to the situation.

[Predicto]

It seems you are making conflicting arguments here. That it would be unwise to send in a QRF but also that the President wouldn't just watch this happen. My thought is that there really was no plan to respond to this situation. There was no defined QRF and that in all likelihood anything not in Banghazi when it all started would have been of little help in saving the Ambassador. Much like in Mogadishu the resources were not there to respond to the situation.

If you want to discuss conflicting arguments, the most egregious appear to be coming from those right wing trying to force this undeniably tragic event into a scandal that implicates the White House.

If you have noticed, Fox and the right wing media keep changing the focus of their attacks on this. It stated out as complaining about how the administration was "apologizing" while the attacks happened. Mitt fired that one off before he had any idea what the hell was going on there. Then the focus changed to the Youtube video and whether Obama was blaming American Christians for causing this attack. Then it was a claim that Obama was weak because he didn't attack random Libyan civilians in retaliation. Then it became Obama could have saved the Ambassador with our Team America strike force that was hovering nearby in their invisible spaceship, but Obama preferred to sit in the White House and let the Ambassador die, you know, for kicks.

All of those things are complete bull, which is why they never stick with any one accusation for long. If you change the charges over and over, no one can respond to them coherently, so you can scream "coverup" "scandal" "Benghazi-gate!!!!!" They are flogging this because they have nothing else to work with right now, and they are desperately trying to make something negative , anything, stick to the President before Tuesday. They are trying to fire up their base with the idea that Obama is cowardly, and unamerican, and and anti-Christian, hell, he's probably a murderer, and he certainly cares more about those dirty Arabs than about our brave soldiers.

It's totally disgusting, and if you read the message boards those voters frequent, it appears to be working.