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

[JMS]

Hail

Hail.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I quoted the full article jut in case there are some who are too lazy to click the link and find out what the Pentagon says happened. If a mod deems that I should shorten it then I will certainly comply.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/10/us-usa-libya-pentagon-idUSBRE8A903U20121110

Pentagon releases Benghazi timeline, defends response

Pentagon leaders knew of the September 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi an hour after it began, but were unable to mobilize reinforcements based in Europe in time to prevent the death of the U.S. ambassador, according to a timeline released on Friday.

Senior defense officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, rejected criticism accusing the Pentagon of failing to move quickly to send reinforcements to relieve the consulate or using armed aerial drones to fire on the attackers.

"Unfortunately, no alternative or additional aircraft options were available within a timeline to be effective," the official added.

The Obama administration's response to the attack became a highly charged political issue in the last weeks of the presidential campaign. The CIA, which had a base near the consulate, and the State Department have released timelines on the incident.

According to the Pentagon's timeline, the military's Africa Command, based in Europe, ordered an unmanned, unarmed surveillance drone diverted to the city in eastern Libya just 17 minutes after the attack on the consulate began about 9:42 p.m. local time (3:42 p.m. EDT), the first military action in response to the incident. It took the drone more than an hour to arrive at the scene.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta's office was notified of the attack 50 minutes after it began, and Panetta learned of it shortly thereafter as he and the military's top general headed to a previously scheduled meeting with President Barack Obama at the White House.

Obama, Panetta and Army General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, discussed potential responses to the unfolding events in Benghazi during their meeting, which began 78 minutes after the start of the Libya attack, according to the timeline.

PENTAGON MEETINGS

Panetta and Dempsey then returned to the Pentagon and began a two-hour series of meetings with General Carter Ham, head of Africa Command, and other senior military leaders from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. EDT (12 a.m. to 2 a.m. Libya time) to organize responses to the attack.

But as they arrived at the Pentagon, the surviving personnel from the consulate in Benghazi were being evacuated by a CIA team that arrived from a nearby base, about two hours after the start of the attack. Ambassador Christopher Stevens was missing.

Stevens' body was found at a local hospital. He apparently died of asphyxiation in the smoke-filled diplomatic compound after it was set ablaze by the attackers. Stevens and three other U.S. personnel died in the attack on the consulate and a nearby CIA annex.

"When initial reports came in, we knew the ambassador could not be reached," a senior defense official told reporters. "We were looking at the possibility of a potential hostage-rescue scenario, for instance. So we didn't know if this was going to be an hours-long event or a days-long even or longer."

During the meetings, the group formulated a response to the attack and gave verbal orders to prepare to deploy two teams of Marine anti-terrorism troops, used for providing security, and two special forces units, one based in Europe and the other in the United States.

One Marine Corps Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team, or FAST team, was designated for the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli and the other for the consulate in Benghazi. The special forces units were ordered to prepare to go to a staging base in Europe.

As the Pentagon meetings got under way, a six-man security team from the embassy in Tripoli, which included two Defense Department personnel, left for Benghazi, landing at the airport at 1:30 a.m Libya time (7:30 p.m. EDT).

A CIA timeline released last week said that team was held up at the airport trying to organize transportation and locate the missing U.S. ambassador.

The team from Tripoli got to the CIA base in Benghazi, at about 5:15 a.m. Libya time (11:15 p.m. EDT), arriving at the start of a mortar attack by militants that killed two U.S. security officers.

An hour after that, a Libyan military unit arrived at the CIA base and helped evacuate all U.S. personnel and the bodies of Stevens and the other slain Americans.

[Thiebear]

And yet you can't name a single historical or empiracle precident to support your premise that 16 guys could stand up against 150 man comparable armed team attacking an embassy. And I can and have named a half dozen historical examples where many more than 16 guards were unsucessful in defending against many fewer than 150 where the attackers had the same advantages enjoyed by the attackers in Benghazi.

Guards? These aren't Walmart greeters or bags of meat with a gun.

75% of the our already deadly trained fighters go through special forces and fail.

Those that succeed continue their training and if you remember earlier in the year an elite group was also sent home (6)? (so its really 22, and from what i read up to 34 in January 2012).

Note: in previous Wars with entire countries: We drop 6-12 into different parts of enemy country by themselves with no backup and ask them to identify targets and "loosen the lid" so its a bit easier for us to shock the world "again" with how fast we move.

So lets go back and watch that video: 1/2 the people walking through the gate were wearing jeans an a tshirt with no weapon?

You believe in your predetermined brain of yours that the 6 elite and embassy 'guard', and 16 special forces not only wouldn't have prevented this from happening with their "Intel"

but that there is no way they could succeed.

Fios has 5 military channels and i'm sure you could read up on what "Special" forces go through and survive. (spend 1/2 the time you've spent disproving and read up.

Then watch the vidoes that have been released to date of people just wandering around through the front gate and the light might turn on.

and yet I'm the mess... and your calling our special forces "guards"

Show me any evidence of "Comparible" armed or trained? based of the photos of that night. As I've stated and the stats on the training prove 75% of the US Military are not comparible to the 'initial' Special Forces Training.

These 150 you keep referring to did their training where?

Noticed you haven't updated the timeline since the day after you posted it: Good job on getting it so accurate it needs no update.

[AsburySkinsFan]

So that video absolutely tells the whole story, seriously, you're speculating and then demanding that someone else's speculation beats yours. This is like the games we used to play as kids, "My gun is bigger than yours!" "No, it's not!" "Yes it is!"

And then the neighbor has the audacity to point out that both guns are imaginary.

[Thiebear]

So that video absolutely tells the whole story, seriously, you're speculating and then demanding that someone else's speculation beats yours. This is like the games we used to play as kids, "My gun is bigger than yours!" "No, it's not!" "Yes it is!"

And then the neighbor has the audacity to point out that both guns are imaginary.

What? the video / photos shows many different unarmed people walking through the front gate: Yes/No

Special Forces are better than Alqaeda volunteers: yes/no

A group of 2 cia agents (ex Speical Forces (Seal) made it to the consulate during the firefight, got in, saved the staff still there and 1 body, got out, and took them to the annex Yes/No

answer those three questions ASF

[AsburySkinsFan]

What? the video shows unarmed people walking through the frong gate: Yes/No

Special Forces are better than Alqaeda volunteers: yes/no

answer those two questions ASF

Does the video show what happened before? No

Again, you are drawing conclusions based on what you don't know.

Yes, special forces are better, but why stop there? Why not demand to know why there wasn't an entire infantry regiment based in the compound. The reality is that whatever happened on the ground, the security wasn't sufficient.

The conspiracy theorists then have to conclude that the US State Department intentionally pulled security from the compound in full knowledge that attacks were eminent. Which is when the tinfoil hats come out.

[Thiebear]

Does the video show what happened before? No

Again, you are drawing conclusions based on what you don't know.

Yes, special forces are better, but why stop there? Why not demand to know why there wasn't an entire infantry regiment based in the compound. The reality is that whatever happened on the ground, the security wasn't sufficient.

The conspiracy theorists then have to conclude that the US State Department intentionally pulled security from the compound in full knowledge that attacks were eminent. Which is when the tinfoil hats come out.

I wouldn't demand to know who wasn't there.. I do demand to know who were there and then removed against the wishes of the people they were protecting.

Per the Ambassador and Col Wood? the leader of the special ops team.

edit:

You forgot to answer i believe: Did a couple of cia agents make it into the consulate, extract the people and get back out again? (thats some serious training them alqaeda got there).

Would you believe if 150 Special forces unit took that consulate that people could just come and go as they please through the front gate 1/4 of the way through the fighting?

Heck would you believe if 2 speical forces personnel took that consulate that people could just come and go through the front gate?

which again leads to "assumption" on my part yes.

(I know i catch hell for climate change and since i'm not a scientist i can't comment)

THIS: I know, I put them through school, I lived with them, dealt with them in the Pentagon.

Edit: in 1988 i was going to become one, but went to Turkey and played on a volcano out in the black sea instead.

I even coach a girls softball team with one.

[visionary]

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/petraeus-due-capitol-benghazi-questioning

Petraeus believed terrorists behind Libya attack

A congressman says David Petraeus (peh-TRAY'-uhs) is telling lawmakers he believed all along that the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya was a terrorist attack.

The former CIA chief is testifying behind closed-doors before the congressional intelligence committees. It's his first Capitol Hill appearance since resigning last Friday over an extramarital affair.

Republican Rep. Peter King tells reporters after the House hearing that Petraeus focused his remarks on Libya.

Lawmakers say Petraeus told them that CIA talking points written after the attack in Benghazi that killed four Americans referred to it as a terrorist attack. But Petraeus says that reference was removed by other federal agencies that made changes to the CIA's draft.

I'm starting to think we need to look at the intelligence chief more.

[JimboDaMan]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/15/mccain-skips-benghazi-briefing-gets-testy-when-questioned-by-cnn/?hpt=hp_t2

McCain skips Benghazi briefing, gets testy when questioned by CNN.

(CNN) - Most of the Republican members of a Senate committee investigating the terrorist attack at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, skipped a classified briefing by administration officials on the incident Wednesday, CNN has learned.

...

When CNN noted that McCain had missed a key meeting on a subject the senator has been intensely upset about, McCain said, "I'm upset that you keep badgering me."

While McCain refused to shed light on why he didn't show, his spokesman Brian Rogers emailed CNN a short time later with an explanation. He blamed it on a "scheduling error" but wouldn't provide any more detail.

.

McCain is either playing games or is unable to adequately manage his own schedule. To use the same logic the Senator used regarding Susan Rice, either way he is incompetent and needs to resign.

Note: I do NOT think this proves McCain should resign, just noting that following his own logic would make him unfit

[Jumbo]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/15/mccain-skips-benghazi-briefing-gets-testy-when-questioned-by-cnn/?hpt=hp_t2

McCain is either playing games or is unable to adequately manage his own schedule. To use the same logic the Senator used regarding Susan Rice, either way he is incompetent and needs to resign.

That's just crazy--those guys missing that meeting after all their phony ass political posturing in matter than involves our people being killed. ****ing vermin. I tell you what...my dark side ("the other guy" as Banner would say) has rarely been more activated more strongly than by the frequent "conservative" (hate to soil a fine term) originating political bull**** of the last couple years. I think I have some latent Stalin tendencies.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

I think Ambassador Rice is owed an apology......but I'm not holding my breath.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/17/world/africa/benghazi-not-petraeus-affair-is-focus-at-hearings.html

Mr. Petraeus said that classified intelligence showed that the deadly raid on the diplomatic mission was a terrorist attack, but that the administration withheld the suspected role of specific affiliates of Al Qaeda to avoid tipping off the terrorist groups.

The C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies prepared unclassified talking points on the attack for members of Congress, and in them the references to Qaeda affiliates were changed to the less specific “extremists” to avoid revealing to insurgents that American intelligence agencies were eavesdropping on their electronic communications.

[Wrong Direction]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/petraeuss-answers-raise-more-questions/2012/11/16/c2674938-3004-11e2-9f50-0308e1e75445_blog.html

Petraeus’s answers raise more questions

By Jennifer Rubin

Watergate had the tape with the 18 1/2-minute gap, and now we have the mystery of the talking points. This raises a slew of questions including these:

* If they were changed, who changed them?

* Why were they changed?

* Did the president know or approve of the changes?

* If Petraeus saw that they were changed, why did he not come forward sooner?

* If other senior officials were aware of the change in story, why didn’t they alert others, Congress or the American people?

* What was national security adviser Thomas Donilon’s role in this?

* Did U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice have access to the original talking points and/or was she aware they had been changed?

* If she didn’t know anything other than the talking points and had no operational responsibility for Benghazi, what was she doing on the talk-show circuit on Sept. 16?

* What information did the secretary of state have and when did she have it. If she, like Petraeus, knew what the real origin of the attack was, why weren’t she and her press staff being more forthright with the public?

* Fox reports that Petraeus’s agency “determined immediately that ‘Al Qaeda involvement’ was suspected.” If the CIA knew immediately that it was a terrorist attack, why did the White House press secretary insist on Sept. 14 it was all about the anti-Muslim video? Why did the president take the same approach in interviews with Univision and “60 Minutes”?

Keep in mind the aftermath of Benghazi is only one aspect of the Benghazi debacle. Other important areas to explore are why the White House was seemingly unaware of the deteriorating security situation in Libya and whether our “delay and then lead-from-behind” strategy left us without accurate intelligence and allowed jihadists a running start in Libya (not to mention Syria, Mali, Yemen and elsewhere).

Frankly until Congress gets to the bottom of this, no one in the administration should be slotted into any new senior national security office. Maybe Rice was an innocent dupe, but we dare not reward her for insufficient curiosity or elevate any other officials if they were involved in misdeeds or demonstrated gross incompetence. And if White House officials are implicated in intentional dishonesty (or just plain cluelessness), they should step down as well.

The good news for the president is that all the current national security slots are filled (albeit the CIA’s by an acting chief). Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has generously agreed to stay on, which she should, until a replacement can be found. In this case, that should follow a full accounting of the Benghazi fiasco.

[Redskins Diehard]

Does the video show what happened before? No

Again, you are drawing conclusions based on what you don't know.

Yes, special forces are better, but why stop there? Why not demand to know why there wasn't an entire infantry regiment based in the compound. The reality is that whatever happened on the ground, the security wasn't sufficient.

The conspiracy theorists then have to conclude that the US State Department intentionally pulled security from the compound in full knowledge that attacks were eminent. Which is when the tinfoil hats come out.

An entire infantry regiment is not reasonable. Some security is reasonable. There is rarely "full knowledge" but as you probably know there are always threat assessments. It certainly seems reasonable and does not require a tinfoil hat to ask if security between the none that was there and the "infantry regiment" that you suggest could have been the prudent thing to do given the security concerns that were reported.

There are people hell bent on proving that the wrong words were used at the wrong time to report what happened. And other people hell bent on defending every decision that was made before, during, and after. And both groups are doing a disservice to those that gave their lives on our behalf. But hey...as long as "our team" "wins".

[Thiebear]

Of course its political: Would be nice for the Annex people to get medals of some sort, beforehand though.

There have been enough CIA and FBI and Defense Dept releases to prove 6 of them took the consulate back briefly before retreating again with the remaining survivors and 1 personnel.

They attempted to leave none behind.

[88Comrade2000]

Well, they are having the hearings today. For the families sake, hope they get more info. on what really happened.

Of course, that's why the Repubs are having hearings today. They hope to uncover evidence that will help them impeach and remove OBama from office and end Hillary Clinton chances of becoming President in 2016.

Well, neither will happen. I have no doubt we will see Obama impeached before the 2014 elections but there will be no convictions. They people who supported Obama and would vote for Hillary; this Benghazi tragedy will

be a non-factor. If they impeach Obama like I think they will over this; 2014 will be a big year for the Dems.

[Dan T.]

Well, they are having the hearings today. For the families sake, hope they get more info. on what really happened.

Of course, that's why the Repubs are having hearings today. They hope to uncover evidence that will help them impeach and remove OBama from office and end Hillary Clinton chances of becoming President in 2016.

Well, neither will happen. I have no doubt we will see Obama impeached before the 2014 elections but there will be no convictions. They people who supported Obama and would vote for Hillary; this Benghazi tragedy will

be a non-factor. If they impeach Obama like I think they will over this; 2014 will be a big year for the Dems.

Turn off Hannity and Fox News. There is no way in hell Obama gets impeached over this. There is nothing there, as much as the Fox gang wants it to be so.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Turn off Hannity and Fox News. There is no way in hell Obama gets impeached over this. There is nothing there, as much as the Fox gang wants it to be so.

Exactly.

I hate the Right right now.

On OBL Obama didn't do it, the generals and Seal Team did.

On Beghazi Obama did it all and apparently the Pentagon and Joint Chiefs had no counsel in the matter.

Hypocritical arses.

[88Comrade2000]

Turn off Hannity and Fox News. There is no way in hell Obama gets impeached over this. There is nothing there, as much as the Fox gang wants it to be so.

I was flipping around. The right is having orgasms today. Of course, they will try to impeach OBama over this. They impeached Bill Clinton and they can't wait to do the same to OBama. Of course, that's all they would get. A right wing impeachment of a center-left President. Senate will not convict and that will be it.

Actually, Dems may secretly want for their to be impeachment hearings because that would pretty much kill any Repub shot in 2014. The Clinton impeachment didn't play over well and the Dems bucked the historical trends in 1998 and actually gained a little. It lead to the resignation of Newt.

I think the right wing House is foaming at the mouth to do impeachment. Repubs don't need high standards to impeach someone they despise.

While I don't care for Democrats either; these Republicans are 90% of the problem and they need to be swept away. The opposition to the Dems is going to have to come elsewhere as the Repubs are nothing but a right wing fringe party married to a incompetent establishment.

[Kilmer17]

Can someone take a minute and quickly restate what happened and why the right wing thinks its totally bad and why the left wing thinks it's totally fine?

Is it more than an Al Queda group attacked and killed Americans?

[Stadium-Armory]

Can someone take a minute and quickly restate what happened and why the right wing thinks its totally bad and why the left wing thinks it's totally fine?

Is it more than an Al Queda group attacked and killed Americans?

Recognizing that this is left wing perspective:

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/10/cutting-through-fog-benghazi-brief-qa

There's not much to it as far as I can tell.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Can someone take a minute and quickly restate what happened and why the right wing thinks its totally bad and why the left wing thinks it's totally fine?

Is it more than an Al Queda group attacked and killed Americans?

I can't say that I have followed this story so closely, but it sounds like the major gripe from the right is that Obama didn't recognize this attack was done by a terrorist group fast enough. And now, its also become that they didn't recognize that a terrorist attack was being carried out in Libya fast enough to prevent it.

The reason I think this is all so stupid is that its just armchair quarterbacking. Conversely, when 9/11 happened, people (well, normal people) didn't come out and try to impeach bush for not preventing a terrorist attack. It just seems like they are "trying to get" Obama. When I hear Peter King say (to paraphrase) "this is like watergate plus iran contra times 10" then I just think people are in a state of hyperbolic crap that I don't need to pay attention to.

Oh, and I think the less people pay attention to it, the more determined the right is becoming to find something that wasn't done up to snuff.

[sacase]

I think that left is basically saying, it happened, so what, fog of war.

the right is saying BS, Everyone knew it was a Terror attack and that Officials in the Administration were trying to cover it up.

I am not sure where I fall on this, but there are some henky things going on with this whole situation. I don't mind congressional investigations that try to get to the bottom of things. Obviously the intent is to make Obama look back, but still the public does have the right to know if it was initially misled and by who.

[Predicto]

Can someone take a minute and quickly restate what happened and why the right wing thinks its totally bad and why the left wing thinks it's totally fine?

Is it more than an Al Queda group attacked and killed Americans?

Not much more. Clearly, the State Department was not prepared for this attack, and just as clearly, our initial response to the attack was confused due to fog of wa and bureaucracy. It has happened at our embassies and consulates before and it will happen again someday, sadly.

The GOP has been trying to make Benghazi into the scandal of the millenium, but they don't have a smoking gun, and there is no concievable narrative under which there would be a smoking gun.

Someone on another board summed it up pretty well.

What they're accusing [Obama] of is trying to make people think it wasn't terrorists until forced to, ordering military units that were going to help to stand down, denying earlier requests for more security, and covering up something (mostly through telling proxies to lie and denying congressional access to the survivors).

If you're asking for a rundown of what actually happened then it's more complicated. Basically a bunch of people [messed] up and by the time anyone realized how badly it was too late to do anything about it. Intelligence reports contradicted each other immediately after the event and some people said stuff that turned out to be wrong.

e: it should be noted that what they're accusing him of is a constantly shifting thing as one line of attack gets discredited and/or they find some other report to chew on. Benghazi is the creation science of right wing attacks. They know the answer (Obama bad) and what he's accused of is whatever best leads to that conclusion at the time.

Or more simply

In the right wing world Obama watched the attack through camera drones, ignored frantic pleas for help, and refused to deploy our magical teleporting troops

[visionary]

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/article3759503.ece

Hillary Clinton ‘involved in Benghazi cover-up’

A furious political argument erupted in Washington yesterday as Hillary Clinton was accused of involvement in a cover-up over the deadly terrorist attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/08/politics/benghazi-hearing/index.html?sr=sharebar_twitter

Obama administration response blasted at Benghazi hearing

Top Republicans and witnesses ripped the Obama administration's response to last year's deadly attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, calling key executive branch officials unresponsive in the critical hours after the assault and uncooperative in the investigations that followed.

Our goal "is to get answers because their families (of the victims) deserve answers," said California Rep. Darrell Issa, the Republican chairman of the House Oversight Committee, which heard from State Department "whistleblowers" at a hearing on Wednesday.

"The administration, however, has not been cooperative and unfortunately our (Democratic House) minority has mostly sat silent," he said.

[Predicto]

I think that left is basically saying, it happened, so what, fog of war.

the right is saying BS, Everyone knew it was a Terror attack and that Officials in the Administration were trying to cover it up.

.

What were they supposed to be trying to cover up, and for what reason? As I recall, the initial complaint was that Obama didn't formally use the word "terrorism" in his speech the next day, which was a really stupid thing to howl about. After that, the focus keeps shifting and shifting.